ELLICOTT CITY, Md. — The Howard County Board of Appeals on Thursday heard an appeal from property owners Aghila Sundaram and Mukesh Kumar challenging a Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) panel decision that denied two alternative‑compliance requests for a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 3956 Old Columbia Pike.

The petitioners asked the board to reverse the panel’s denial of (1) a waiver to remove three specimen trees and (2) a waiver to allow disturbance within the 75‑foot stream bank buffer to construct a driveway, utilities easement and a stormwater pond. Appellants’ counsel (identified in the hearing as “Mr. O”) argued the denials prevent the property owners from creating a legally allowed second lot on a 1.15‑acre parcel and raised concerns about a possible regulatory taking. The board recessed the hearing to obtain legal guidance and set deadlines for further filings and a deliberation date.

Appellants’ case and engineering testimony

Appellants were represented at the hearing by counsel identified in the transcript as Mr. O. Mr. O framed the appeal around two central facts presented by the appellants’ engineering witness: the lot’s size and shape, and the presence of a stream and associated buffer that cross the rear of the parcel. Mr. O told the board the three‑member DPZ panel (the director of DPZ, the director of Recreation and Parks, and the director of the Office of Community Sustainability) “did not understand the constitutionality” of denying the waivers and urged the board to reverse the decision; he also said the appellants would ask the board to order refund of appellate fees if the panel’s denial is overturned.

Sam Alomer, a civil engineer who gave testimony for the appellants, described the property and the proposal. Mr. Alomer identified himself as “Sam Alomer” and said he is “the president of Miltenberg, Bowinder and Associates.” He testified the subject lot is approximately 1.15 acres, trapezoidal with wider frontage on Old Columbia Pike and narrowing to the rear, and that a stream and wetlands cross the back of the parcel. He said the rear parcel (3958 Old Columbia Pike) is 4.3 acres and is effectively landlocked for future subdivision without an easement.

Alomer testified the subdivision plan relies on two access/utility easements across the 3956 parcel: a 10‑foot use‑in‑common driveway and a public water easement. He said those easements—and the required stormwater management device—must occupy the area shown on the submitted plan and that the proposed surface‑pond stormwater facility is large because the property lies in the Tiber Branch watershed and must meet stringent county stormwater standards. Alomer cited stormwater modeling in the submitted report and said the proposed design reduces modeled post‑development flow from about 4.16 cubic feet per second pre‑development to roughly 2.15 cubic feet per second for the 10‑year storm (excerpts of the stormwater report were offered as an exhibit). He estimated the proposed pond footprint at roughly 7,000–8,000 square feet.

On the tree issue, Alomer identified three specimen trees called out on the plan (referred to in the record as ST15, ST11 and ST10). He testified ST11 showed trunk damage and poor condition, ST15 and ST10 would be materially impacted by the proposed driveway grading or by providing the easement, and county regulations treat a tree whose critical root zone is 30% disturbed as effectively lost after development.

DPZ panel rationale and hearing‑examiner remarks

The record before the board incorporated the DPZ alternative‑compliance decision(s) and the hearing examiner’s decision and order. According to the DPZ final decision excerpts read into the record by the appellants’ counsel, the panel concluded the applicant’s design “exceeds the disturbance necessary to develop a two‑lot subdivision” and noted the adjoining land (the rear parcel) has an existing single‑family driveway that allows continued use of that property. The appellants contested those conclusions, arguing the existing driveway is on a neighboring parcel, is not on the appellant’s land, and would not legally or practically allow subdivision of the rear parcel.

The hearing examiner’s decision raised an additional statutory question referencing Howard County zoning/subdivision provisions (cited in the transcript as section 16‑1‑0‑4 D 4 and related code sections), and the appellants argued DPZ did not evaluate or apply that provision in the panel’s decision.

Board discussion, jurisdiction and record issues

Board members spent substantial time questioning the witness about: the site plan layout, alternatives for driveway alignment, the size and location of the stormwater facility, the number and condition of specimen trees, and whether any alternate plan could avoid the stream buffer or save the trees. Several board members pressed whether the rear parcel truly lacked a legal means to subdivide without the proposed easement.

Significant time was also spent on legal‑process questions: what relief the Board of Appeals may grant on administrative appeal of a DPZ decision, whether the board must confine its review to the administrative record created at the panel level, and whether the board may itself modify or grant waivers that the panel had authority to decide. The Office of Law asked for time to research and advised the board it would provide a memorandum on the board’s authority, the proper record for review, and the available remedies. The board set a schedule for additional filings: appellants and counsel were asked to file any legal submissions by Oct. 23, and the board scheduled deliberation on Nov. 6 at 9 a.m.

Administrative actions at the session

At the start of the session the board approved minutes from its Sept. 4, 2025 meeting. The motion to approve was moved by board member Miss Viracov and seconded by Miss Phillips; roll call showed Chair Gene Ryan, Miss Viracov, Miss Harris and Miss Phillips voting to approve and Miss McCurdy abstaining. The board also agreed, by consent, to consolidate cases BA‑818D and BA‑819D for a single presentation. The hearing recessed for research and was continued pending the Office of Law memorandum and parties’ filings.

Why this matters

The board’s decision will determine whether the DPZ panel’s denial of alternative compliance—on stream buffer encroachment and specimen‑tree removal—remains in place, or whether the appellants may proceed with a two‑lot subdivision as proposed. Appellants contend denial effectively prevents legal subdivision of the rear property and amounts to an uncompensated regulatory taking; DPZ’s written decision emphasized minimizing disturbance and noted existing access on neighboring parcels. The case raises both substantive land‑use questions (how stormwater, buffer and specimen‑tree rules apply to a specific lot) and procedural ones (scope of review and remedies on administrative appeal).

Next steps and scheduled filings

The board asked the Office of Law to provide a written memorandum addressing the board’s authority on administrative appeals, the proper scope of the record, and what remedies the board may implement (affirm, reverse, modify, or remand). The appellants (through counsel) were asked to submit any legal memorandum or additional evidence by Oct. 23, 2025. The board scheduled deliberation and potential decision for Nov. 6, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The hearing record remains open for the limited items the board requested; no final decision was entered on the merits at the Oct. 16 session.