Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Nonconforming Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bartley Corporation asks Howard County to approve replacement repair building, expansion of longstanding nonconforming trailer-dealer use

5503297 · July 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Andrew Bartley, one of two owners of the Bartley Corporation, told the Howard County hearing examiner on July 29 that the company seeks approval to demolish an unused structure and build a 4,970-square-foot repair and storage building at the property identified in the application as 15095 Frederick Road.

Andrew Bartley, one of two owners of the Bartley Corporation, told the Howard County hearing examiner on July 29 that the company seeks approval to demolish an unused structure and build a 4,970-square-foot repair and storage building at the property identified in the application as 15095 Frederick Road. "We are a trailer dealership. So we sell trailers, repair trailers, and serve the public with, parts, pretty much anything trailers," Bartley said.

The request, filed as NCU25-007N, would enlarge an already nonconforming trailer-dealership use that was confirmed in 2015 (NCU15001). The applicant said the property previously received approval in 2020 under file VA19023N for a 4,624-square-foot truck, trailer maintenance and storage building, but that approval lapsed after the permit was not pulled within two years. "It's my understanding that although I didn't know at the time is that 2 years have lapsed, and, we needed to go through this again," Bartley said.

Why the hearing matters: County code allows limited enlargements of nonconforming uses if they do not change the use, do not exceed a 100% increase in gross floor area from the size when the use first became nonconforming, and otherwise meet bulk and setback rules for the zoning district. The technical staff report listed the original nonconforming gross floor area as 10,547 square feet; the proposed 4,970-square-foot building would represent about a 47.1% increase in gross floor area from that baseline, according to the record.

At the hearing, Tom Cole, speaking on behalf of the applicant, and the project's civil engineer addressed specific site issues raised in the technical staff report. The staff report quoted a comment from Andrew Arnold that "there is insufficient parking shown around the replacement building. Additionally, no handicap parking or accessible route is provided." Dennis Ream, civil engineer with Adcock and Associates, testified that the revised site plan dated in July 2025 shows 29 parking spaces, including two handicap spaces, and that the site plan includes the required accessible route. Ream said, "There is adequate parking. We will be providing adequate parking on the property. We will be increasing the property count or the parking count to, 29, without any problems" and that the two accessible spaces will be provided in front of the building.

The applicant told the examiner the proposed structure complies with the B-1 District lot-line setback and height limits and will not enlarge the boundaries of the nonconforming use area. The record lists two existing framed structures at the site (one about 3,242 square feet and one about 4,555 square feet) and two pole-barn-type structures of roughly 690 and 2,060 square feet, as shown on the amended nonconforming-use exhibit.

The record also notes the closest residential structure is approximately 600 feet from the proposed building and that the property has been used continuously for the trailer-dealership use since at least the time of its confirmation in 2015. The applicant acknowledged that the earlier 2020 approval was not acted upon within the two-year permit window, which led to the current application.

No formal vote was taken at the hearing. After the petitioner concluded its case, the hearing examiner closed the hearing and said a written decision would be issued later. The applicant requested approval, saying the proposal meets the criteria for enlargement of a nonconforming use and the conditions noted in the technical staff report.

Looking ahead: The hearing record will be used by the hearing examiner to prepare a written decision. The transcript and revised site plan are in the record; the record indicates the revised site plan shows ADA parking and the accessible route, but the nonconforming-use exhibit itself does not show the ADA access and the examiner and staff flagged that distinction during the hearing.