Howard County Board of Appeals Hearing, October 15, 2026

The Howard County Board of Appeals convened on Thursday, October 15, 2026, at 9:00 am in a hybrid meeting format. The board first approved the minutes from its October 1, 2026 meeting on a unanimous 4-0 vote. The primary agenda item was the continued hearing of Case BA823D, an appeal by David Marc et al. against the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning concerning the Maryland International School's request for an alternative compliance and alternative variance for the removal of a specimen tree and the disturbance of steep slopes at 6135 Old Washington Road, Elkridge, MD.

Consent Calendar

• Meeting Minutes (October 1, 2026): The board unanimously approved the minutes via roll call vote (4-0).

Discussion & Deliberations: Case BA823D

The board heard closing summations from the parties regarding the two main issues.

Summation by Appellant's Counsel (Alex Votar, representing citizen appellants):

• Argued that the property is not unique under Maryland case law (Dan's Mountain Wind Forest), as surrounding properties share the same topographical features.
• Contended that the hardship justifying the steep slope disturbance was economic in nature, driven by a desire to maximize development (including an auditorium, parking garage, gymnastics gym, indoor pool, and soccer field) rather than being driven by practical difficulty unrelated to profit.
• For the specimen tree, argued the hardship was self-created because the tree was planted by a prior owner, and the analysis must consider the entire property, where other developable areas exist.
• Asked the board to reverse the department's approvals.

Summation by Applicant's Counsel (Christopher DiCarlo, representing Maryland International School):

• Emphasized the appellants' burden of proof to show the agency decision was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
• Argued that the uniqueness criteria is met by unique topographical conditions (85 feet of vertical grade, historic building, stream buffers, pump station, 44,000 square feet of steep slopes) and that zoning variance case law (Baragaba v. Prince George's County) does not apply to these environmental waivers.
• Noted only 8,500 of the property's 44,000 square feet of steep slopes would be disturbed for an approved athletic field and required stormwater management.
• For the specimen tree (Tree #6, one of nine on the site), argued removal is essential for ADA access, as 46% of its critical root zone is already compromised (double the county's 23% threshold), and self-created hardship is not a codified criterion for this waiver type.

Board Deliberations:

• Specimen Tree (Section 16.126): All members agreed the agency's decision was rational based on the tree's compromised condition, precarious location on a steep slope, and the ADA compliance requirement. The appeal was denied 4-0.
• Steep Slopes (Sections 16.104 & 16.116): A split emerged over criterion 16.104A1(ii) (uniqueness/practical difficulty). Board member McCurdy argued the agency's written decision lacked a clear rationale for finding the property unique, making it appear arbitrary, and that the appellants met their burden. Vice Chair Feercub and members Harris and Phillips found the decision was supported by the evidence of unique topographical constraints and that the appellants failed to prove the decision was clearly erroneous. The appeal was denied 3-1.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Approve Minutes: Approved (4-0).
• Appeal on Specimen Tree Removal (Alternative Variance): Denied. The board upheld the agency's approval (4-0).
• Appeal on Steep Slope Disturbance (Alternative Compliance): Denied. The board upheld the agency's approval (3-1).
• Adjournment: The board concluded the case and the hearing stood adjourned.