Howard County Board of Appeals Hearing in BA829D (Gorhan v. DPZ) - October 27, 2026

The Howard County Board of Appeals met in hybrid session (Banneker Room and WebEx) on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to about 2:00 p.m. Vice Chair Lynn Feerkow presided. The sole substantive matter was BA829D, Donna Gorhan's appeal concerning 10450 Waterfowl Terrace, Columbia, Maryland (Council District 5, Tax Map 30, Lot 144). The agenda identifies the appeal as from the Hearing Examiner's June 15, 2026 Decision and Order dismissing the petition; the case call also identified the underlying agency action as DPZ's March 10, 2026 decision finding no zoning violations in response to the appellant's complaint (case CE 2617). A written minutes packet was not provided, but the Board approved the October 15, 2026 minutes on the record.

Consent Calendar

• Approved unanimously the October 15, 2026 meeting minutes by motion, second, and roll-call vote (all Board members voting approved).

Discussion Items

• Case call and standard of review: The Board stated the appeal proceeded de novo under Board Rule 2.210A, with the appellant bearing the burden of proving by a preponderance that the agency's decision was clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, or contrary to law. Each Board member confirmed having visited the subject property.
• Subpoena issue: The appellant asked that absent subpoenaed witnesses be carried to November 17, 2026, and that the record remain open for their testimony; the Board later confirmed that subpoenaed witnesses remain required on November 17.
• Motion to dismiss: DPZ counsel, David Moore, moved to dismiss the appeal as an untimely challenge to the 2025 building permit, arguing DPZ had already assessed the same zoning question before issuing the permit, the property owner built according to a valid permit and approvals, and allowing the later no-violation appeal would permit endless re-litigation. The appellant responded that she was appealing DPZ's March 10, 2026 decision closing code enforcement case CE 2617, that she filed within 30 days, and that the Board had jurisdiction under Section 130.0.B.4.
• Closed session: The Board voted to close the meeting briefly under the Maryland Open Meetings Act, Md. Code, General Provisions § 3-305(b)(7), to consult with counsel about the motion; it then returned to open session.
• Ruling and scope limitation: The Board unanimously denied DPZ's motion to dismiss. It clarified that it would not re-evaluate the issuance of the building permit; its review was limited to the March 10, 2026 no-violation decision, including whether the construction complied with the building permit or whether the inspection was mistaken.
• Opening statements: The appellant argued the decisive issue was whether DPZ had a factual basis to treat the old shed as part of the house; if the shed was not part of the dwelling, the new garage was not entitled to the existing-dwelling setback encroachment under Section 128.0.B.2. DPZ argued that the structure was a properly permitted replacement of a connected part of the house occupying the same footprint, which is why DPZ found no violation.
• Appellant's testimony: Ms. Gorhan testified that she was not challenging the building permit, but the March 10 closure decision. She contended the demolished shed was free-standing and nonconforming, and that the new garage protrudes further into the setback than the shed did. She also noted that the face of the permit did not list a setback number.
• Jeff Goens testimony: The former DPZ zoning official confirmed that in November 2023 he responded to the property owner's emailed description and photos without a site visit or shed measurement. The Board largely limited this testimony as pre-permit and outside the scope of the 2026 complaint.
• Inspector Blanding testimony: The DPZ inspector described his March 2, 2026 inspection. He measured 4.8 feet from the front corner of the garage, the closest point to the neighboring property, using a roller tape; no property line markers were present. The approved file materials, including a survey, indicated a 4.8-foot side setback was allowed, while the general side-yard setback was 7.5 feet. He took still photos and a short video, did not take other measurements along the approximately 27-28 foot garage wall, and concluded the structure was consistent with the approved permit; after review with his supervisor, no notice of violation was issued. On cross, he acknowledged that no survey marker was present at the time of his March measurement, but a later survey and property marker were in place; he would have pursued a violation if he had found noncompliance.
• Evidentiary rulings: The Board admitted Exhibit 21 (inspection photos and approximately 20-second video) after DPZ stated no objection, and admitted Exhibit 5 (residential building permit) into evidence. Exhibit 30 (survey packet) was marked for identification only, not admitted as substantive evidence, with one page accepted for reference. The Board sustained relevance objections to several older documents, including the 1969 plot plan, Wild Lake association emails, and the November 2023 email exchange, as predating the 2025 permit and 2026 complaint.

Key Outcomes

• The Board unanimously denied DPZ's motion to dismiss.
• Admitted DPZ inspection video/photos (Exhibit 21) and building permit (Exhibit 5); marked survey set (Exhibit 30) for identification only.
• No final decision on the merits; hearing adjourned to November 17, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
• Record remains open for absent subpoenaed witnesses; subpoenaed witnesses remain required on November 17.
• Witnesses Goens and Blanding were excused; the appeal remains pending.