Howard County hearing: Neighbors seek remand after DPZ again finds no zoning violations at Manor Hill property

Alex Votov, an attorney with the Law Office of G. Macy Nelson representing nearby property owners, asked the Howard County hearing examiner on the record to vacate a Department of Planning and Zoning response letter and remand the matter with binding instructions that DPZ follow prior hearing-examiner determinations.

Votov said the petitioners’ appeal challenges three legal conclusions in DPZ’s response: that a 50-person limit in a farm brewery permit does not apply to events branded or advertised under Manor Hill Brewing; that DPZ need not evaluate whether truck traffic has increased beyond the two 22-foot box-truck trips per week assumed at original approval; and that accessory structures on the property exceed the cumulative 2,200-square-foot limit for accessory buildings in the RC district and are not legitimate farm buildings.

“These are the three major issues,” Votov said, adding that the hearing examiner previously ruled those legal interpretations and that DPZ “did not appeal that decision” and therefore is bound by it. Votov quoted the prior decision, saying the hearing examiner had ruled that “anytime alcohol is consumed or sold on the premises is done under the farm brewery permit,” and that the brewery’s tap room was limited to 50 visitors and “cannot be allowed to have private events.”

David Moore, an attorney from the Howard County Office of Law representing DPZ, urged the hearing examiner not to resolve the dispute on the pleadings and said DPZ should be permitted to present testimony and evidence about what investigation it performed after the hearing examiner’s prior remand. Moore told the hearing examiner the department would call a witness—identified in the hearing as Steve Roles—to explain DPZ’s follow-up, including inspections and traffic studies, and said the department has not closed the case.

Moore argued that the current filing is a preliminary motion amounting to a motion for judgment on the pleadings and that the petitioners have not submitted evidence to meet their burden. He also asserted legal limits on what constitutes an appealable action by DPZ and cited a recent Maryland appellate discussion raised in the hearing (Khan v. Kendall, Oct. 2024, Westlaw cite referenced by counsel) to underscore the department’s discretion in enforcement.

Petitioners’ counsel disputed that position, saying DPZ in its response letter adopted legal conclusions that “directly conflict” with the hearing examiner’s earlier orders in case BA794D (issued May 1, 2023) and the remand decision in BA8060 (issued Feb. 27, 2025). Votov asked the hearing examiner to vacate DPZ’s letter and remand with instructions that DPZ: (1) determine whether events where alcohol is sold or consumed cause more than 50 visitors at any one time regardless of whether the property owner calls the activity agritourism; (2) determine the nature and intensity of truck traffic and whether it exceeds the originally anticipated 2 weekly 22-foot box-truck visits, and if so declare the farm-brewery permit void; and (3) declare the barn and tap room are not legitimate farm buildings if they together exceed the accessory-structure cap and prohibit private events in those spaces if so.

Counsel for the petitioners said DPZ’s November 2023 and May 2025 response letters failed to follow the hearing examiner’s specific instructions and either ignored or relitigated legal issues the examiner had already decided. Petitioners’ counsel emphasized that several determinations in the DPZ letter—such as that inspections showed “no violation observed” during advertised events—are appealable decisions and thus properly before the hearing examiner.

The hearing examiner did not rule at the close of argument. The examiner said she would take the motion under advisement and issue a decision and order. She also announced that an evidentiary hearing on the case is scheduled for Oct. 15 at 5:30 p.m., and directed that a decision and order on the preliminary motion would follow.

The dispute centers on zoning approvals for a property with a farm brewery permit, an agritourism enterprise permit and a large farm-stand permit. Relevant regulatory points raised at the hearing include: the farm brewery tap room’s 50-person visitor cap as stated in the prior decision; the zoning-ordinance requirement that uses not “unduly conflict” with other uses along Manor Lane; the hearing examiner’s prior finding that accessory buildings on the site must be cumulatively limited to 2,200 square feet in the RC district unless legitimate farm buildings; and DPZ’s position—stated in its response letter—that agritourism uses and the farm stand fall within allowed activities and that “local” sourcing for the farm stand is defined to a 100-mile radius in the county’s regulations.

No final administrative decision was issued at the hearing. The hearing examiner’s forthcoming decision and order will state whether she will vacate DPZ’s response and remand with the petitioners’ requested instructions or allow DPZ to present further evidence at the scheduled evidentiary hearing.