Baltimore County hearing panel approves two setback variances for Brannon Road property

On May 14, 2025, a Baltimore County zoning hearing panel approved two setback variances for property at 2621–2623 Brannon Road in the Seventh Councilmanic District, case number 2024‑0190‑A. The panel granted a reduction of the required 40‑foot front setback to 34 feet and a reduction of the required 25‑foot left‑side setback to 8 feet for the legal owner, Edgemere Wildlife Trust.

The panel unanimous decision followed a brief deliberation in which members said the lot’s small, irregular shape and the road intruding into the parcel created a practical difficulty under the governing case law standard (the Cromwell test). The panel and counsel filed memoranda for the record and heard expert witnesses for both sides before deliberating.

During the deliberation, the unnamed hearing officer said, “I would grant the variances,” and that the property’s size, shape and road intrusion made it unique. The hearing officer added, “I credit Mr. Rupp’s testimony significantly.” One board member noted the county had previously approved a foundation footprint in 1938 and said denying the variances would amount to denying reasonable use of the property. Another member described the proposed alternative building as “bizarre” and said constructing a conforming building would be unreasonably burdensome.

Board members and counsel referenced several written memoranda submitted by the parties; the panel said the three memoranda helped frame the legal issues. Counsel for the people (referred to in the record as “People’s Counsel”) argued a stricter view of the practical‑difficulty standard, but the panel said it did not find impossibility to be required and concluded the Cromwell test was satisfied.

The record includes discussion that the prior building had been used as a duplex and was demolished; board members debated whether the nonconforming duplex use had been grandfathered and whether that history affected the variance analysis. The panel did not rule separately on nonconforming‑use questions; it granted the requested setback variances for rebuilding on the prior foundation footprint.

The panel’s decision was announced at the end of the deliberation and described as unanimous. The transcript does not record a formal roll‑call vote with individual yes/no entries, only the panel’s statement that “we've agreed unanimously that the 2 variances are approved.” The case remains identified in the record as 2024‑0190‑A. The hearing was adjourned immediately after the decision.

Background details in the record include the requested setback dimensions and an approximate building footprint discussed during deliberations (about 18.5 by 25 feet, as recalled by a board member). The panel relied on testimony and exhibits showing the lot’s irregular shape and the road encroachment as the primary bases for finding a practical difficulty under applicable case law.