Howard County Board of Appeals denies challenge to DPZ's decision closing zoning complaint against W.R. Grace

The Howard County Board of Appeals on Sept. 4, 2025 denied an appeal of the Department of Planning and Zoning's (DPZ) Sept. 13, 2024 closeout letter that found no zoning violation at W.R. Grace's Building 30. The board voted 4-0 to deny the appellants' request to overturn DPZ's determination (Chair Jean Ryan; Board members Fairchild, Harris and Phillips voted to deny).

The appeal challenged DPZ's handling of zoning complaint CE24107, filed Aug. 8, 2024 by neighborhood residents alleging that activities in Building 30 went beyond a legally existing nonconforming "research and development" (R&D) use and into an impermissible operation (petitioners also raised concerns about a proposed pilot plastics-recycling operation). DPZ closed the complaint in a Sept. 13, 2024 letter and attached explanation after a site inspection and correspondence; the appeal to the hearing authority was filed Oct. 10, 2024.

Why it mattered: The dispute centers on whether DPZ properly investigated and applied Howard County's zoning code when determining whether the activity at Building 30 remained a lawful, existing nonconforming R&D use or had become a different, disallowed use or an unlawful expansion. Appellants urged the board that DPZ's file lacked detailed analytical notes and that technical aspects of the operation warranted deeper review. DPZ and its director, Linda Eisenberg, said the department's inspection and record supported the no-violation finding.

What DPZ said: Linda Eisenberg, director of the Department of Planning and Zoning, described the agency's investigation process and records in testimony. "If we find there is no violation, we write a letter closing out the case," Eisenberg said during questioning, and she described the department's usual practice: "If they come into compliance, we don't issue a citation. If they don't come into compliance, we issue a citation, but we always work toward abatement." She told the board DPZ visited Building 30 in early September 2024 and that staff had coordinated with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for the site tour.

What appellants said: Appellants and community representatives pushed that DPZ's administrative record lacked handwritten notes and clear evidence about who was on-site and what, specifically, was observed. Aidan Morrell, who testified for the community, said he and others met with Eisenberg about the department's determination and that those meetings focused on the zoning complaint, not a zoning regulation amendment (ZRA). "I can categorically state I had no interest, at this time in the ZRA," Morrell said. Appellants also argued a number of emails and third-party statements in the record were hearsay or otherwise did not substitute for direct technical analysis.

Board action and reasoning: After hearing cross-examination and questions from board members, the Board of Appeals concluded the record did not show DPZ had acted arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary to law in closing the CE24107 file. Board members noted that DPZ had inspected the site, documented its findings in staff exhibits and that the complaint raised questions properly addressed first by the local zoning enforcement process; matters involving air permits and technical emissions assessments are handled by other state agencies. The board therefore denied the appeal 4-0.

Votes at a glance: The board voted to deny the appeal (4-0). Recorded votes: Chair Jean Ryan ' deny; Board Member Fairchild ' deny; Board Member Harris ' deny; Board Member Phillips ' deny. The board said it will issue a written decision and order within 60 days.

What this means going forward: The denial leaves DPZ's Sept. 13, 2024 closeout letter intact; the department's determination that activities at Building 30 constituted an existing R&D nonconforming use stands. Appellants did not prevail on their claim that DPZ's investigation was legally insufficient. Technical or regulatory concerns outside zoning enforcement (for example, air-permit issues) remain matters for state agencies and for any parallel court proceedings.

Scope and evidence: Key, documentable dates in the administrative record include the complaint received Aug. 8, 2024; DPZ case entry Aug. 16, 2024; site inspection activity in early September 2024; the DPZ closeout letter dated Sept. 13, 2024; and the administrative appeal filed Oct. 10, 2024. DPZ's file included staff notes, internal case logging entries, emails between DPZ and MDE, and a closeout letter and attachments from W.R. Grace. Appellants repeatedly raised that portions of the internal record were created with system-generated timestamps and that some contemporaneous notes (handwritten or otherwise) were not present in the record.

Reporting note: The article is based on the Sept. 4, 2025 Howard County Board of Appeals hearing transcript and documents entered into the administrative record during that proceeding. Direct quotations in this article are verbatim from witness testimony during the hearing.