Howard County Hearing Examiner Meeting - August 19, 2026: Sign Variance Case BA 26-015S

On August 19, 2026, at 10:00 AM, the Howard County Hearing Examiner (Joyce Nichols) held a hybrid hearing for case BA 26-015S, a petition by Baltimore Signs & Graphics (representing Blair Sign Programs, which represents Burlington Stores) seeking a sign area variance for the Burlington store at Columbia Crossing shopping center (6161 Columbia Crossing Circle, Columbia, MD). The requested variance is 289.25 square feet above the code allowance, for a total sign area of 467 square feet. The hearing included testimony from the applicant's representatives, and no public comments were received.

Discussion Items

• Petitioner's Arguments for Variance: The applicant presented three main arguments: (1) Unique physical conditions – a setback of approximately 600 feet from the main shopping center entrance (Columbia Crossing Circle) and partial obstruction of visibility by trees and foliage, creating a practical difficulty. (2) Obstructions – excessive grade change (about 5 feet) and landscaping on the property that interfere with sign visibility. (3) Historical/architectural/aesthetic characteristics – the Burlington logo includes ascending and descending letters (e.g., capital B, lowercase letters, g descending), which creates about 186 square feet of unused space within the sign's bounding box; the applicant argued that this dead space should be considered a hardship because it forces the sign to be larger to achieve the same letter height as nearby tenants. The applicant also noted that there are no wayfinding or ground-mounted identification signs in the shopping center, making the store harder to find.

• Hearing Examiner's Questions on Variance Criteria: Examiner Nichols systematically reviewed the six variance criteria:

  • Criterion 1 (Unique physical conditions): The applicant cited the store's location in a corner of the shopping center, tree coverage, and intentional obscuring of the center from roadways. The examiner noted that the shopping center was designed to be obscured from 175 and Dobbin Road.
  • Criterion 2 (Obstructions): The applicant pointed to foliage and grade changes on Dobbin Road that block visibility. The examiner acknowledged the intentional design of the shopping center.
  • Criterion 3 (Historical/architectural/aesthetic): The applicant stated that the facade design follows Burlington's national branding and is aesthetically compatible with the shopping center. The examiner noted no historical properties nearby.
  • Criterion 4 (Effect on adjacent properties/traffic): The applicant and examiner agreed the variance would not adversely affect adjacent properties (the center is fully developed) or create dangerous traffic conditions.
  • Criterion 5 (Minimum variance necessary): The applicant argued that the 84-inch letter height is the minimum needed for visibility from 600 feet, and that after accounting for dead space, the effective sign area is closer to 281 square feet, aligning with other tenants.
  • Criterion 6 (Hardship not self-imposed): The applicant asserted that the hardship is imposed by the shopping center's design and location, not by the applicant. The examiner questioned whether the enlarged facade (part of Burlington's national branding) could be a self-imposed hardship; the applicant countered that the larger facade was necessary to accommodate a larger sign for visibility.

• Additional Testimony: Nicholas Zonner (Blair Sign Programs) briefly added that the larger sign would help Burlington thrive, bring customers to the shopping center, and benefit the tax base.

Key Outcomes

• The evidentiary hearing was concluded by Examiner Nichols. A decision and order will be issued at a later date. No vote was taken during the hearing.