The Baltimore County Board of Appeals on June 12, 2025, unanimously denied a motion to reconsider its March 24, 2025, order that denied approval of an existing lawful nonconforming use for a boarding house at 2420 Hollyneck. The motion for reconsideration was filed April 12, 2025, by William M. Ladner.

The decision matters because the March 24 order — amended April 8, 2025, to give occupants 120 days to vacate the property — remains in place and affects the property's occupants and any ongoing enforcement or appeal strategy. The board said the motion did not meet the standards for reconsideration under its rules.

Chair Sharron Bernardi said Rule 12 of the board’s rules of practice and procedure requires a motion for reconsideration to “state with specificity the grounds and reasons for the motion” and listed the recognized bases, including newly discovered evidence, change in law, fraud, mistake or irregularity. Bernardi said she did not see a change in law, fraud, mistake or irregularity and questioned whether the evidence presented in the motion was newly discovered. She said, “I do think it would just give them a second bite at the apple,” if the board reopened the case.

Board member Fred Lauer said the motion asserted newly discovered documents and witnesses but that the record did not explain how the materials were discovered or why they were unavailable during the underlying proceedings. Lauer said tax records cited in the motion appeared old and that he saw no explanation why they could not have been presented at the original hearing. He said, “I don't see how that we should grant this motion to basically open up the hearing again.”

Another board member agreed with Lauer and Bernardi, saying the asserted evidence did not go to the core issue and could have been presented earlier or requested through a postponement. That member added that the code imposes a heavy burden of proof on the petitioner and that the motion did not meet the standard for newly discovered evidence.

The panel noted procedural items on the record: the webinar notice for the June 12 session misstated the case number as 24-202-SPH; the correct case number is 24-101-SPH. The board also referenced the administrative hearing record and the earlier administrative law judge opinion discussed at prior proceedings.

After deliberation, the three panel members announced a unanimous decision to deny the motion for reconsideration and said they would draft and issue a written order reflecting that denial. The board did not record a formal roll-call vote in the transcript beyond the statement that the decision was unanimous. The original order denying the existing lawful nonconforming use and the April 8 amendment allowing occupants 120 days to vacate remain in effect.

Background: The panel held an initial hearing on Oct. 16, 2024. On March 24, 2025, the panel issued an order denying approval of the property's claimed existing lawful nonconforming boarding-house use; that order was amended April 8, 2025, to include a 120-day vacate period for occupants. The motion to reconsider was filed within the 30-day window following the March 24 order, as allowed by the board’s rules.

The transcript shows the board’s deliberation focused on whether the motion presented truly new evidence or merely material the petitioner wished had been introduced earlier. The board did not adopt any new factual findings on the merits of the underlying nonconforming-use determination during this deliberation and did not schedule further hearings.