Howard County Hearing Examiner Meeting – September 14, 2026

On September 14, 2026, the Howard County Hearing Examiner, Joyce Nichols, convened a hybrid hearing at the George Howard Building (Banneker Room and WebEx) to consider Case BA26-016V – a variance petition from Chris Maclay (5655 Railroad Avenue, Elkridge) to exceed the maximum 800 sq ft lot coverage for an existing accessory dwelling unit (ADU) by 200 sq ft (a 20% increase). The hearing streamed live via the county website.

Discussion Items

• Applicant Testimony: Chris Maclay, a 74-year-old carpenter, testified that the ADU—originally built as a workshop and later converted—now measures 1,000 sq ft. He stated he did not obtain permits for the construction or conversion. The variance is needed to legalize the existing structure. Maclay explained that after losing his museum job in 2018, he rents out the front of the house to nurses and lives in the ADU himself, relying on rental income and Social Security. He expressed a desire to remain in Elkridge and avoid selling the property.
• Hearing Examiner Findings: Examiner Nichols reviewed the five required findings for a variance:
  1. Unique physical conditions: The lot is extremely narrow, long, and slopes approximately 2–3 feet from the main house toward the rear. The topography and storm drainage patterns were noted.
  2. No harm to neighborhood: The area is zoned R-12 and already developed residentially; the ADU is visually similar to the main house (an A-frame with metal roof and gray siding). The variance will not alter the neighborhood character, impair adjacent property use, or be detrimental to public welfare.
  3. Hardship not self-created: Maclay acknowledged he built without permits but argued the hardship arises from the lot's physical constraints and his financial need. The examiner expressed difficulty with this finding but continued the analysis.
  4. Minimum necessary relief: The applicant seeks only to legalize the existing 1,000 sq ft structure, not to add any new square footage.
  5. Not within a historic district: Maclay confirmed the property is not in a historic district.
• Neighborhood Context: Maclay stated that all neighboring properties have long, narrow lots with sheds or structures, and he has helped many neighbors with their projects. No neighbors appeared in opposition.

Key Outcomes

• The hearing examiner concluded the evidentiary hearing and stated that a decision and order would be forthcoming. No immediate ruling was issued from the bench.
• The applicant must next obtain necessary building permits and inspections to legalize the structure after the zoning variance is resolved (if granted).