Howard County Board of Appeals hears Morel appeal of DPZ closeout letter over W.R. Grace activity at 7500 Grace Drive

The Howard County Board of Appeals on Aug. 21 heard oral argument and testimony in an appeal brought by Aiden and Sarah Morel (and other neighbors) challenging the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning’s decision to close a zoning complaint for 7500 Grace Drive, Columbia (Tax Map 35, Parcel 145) without issuing a notice of violation. The property is about 54.8 acres in Council District 4 and is located in the PEC (Planned Employment Center) zoning district.

Petitioners’ counsel said DPZ’s Sept. 13, 2024 closeout letter did not reflect a meaningful on-site inquiry, claiming DPZ failed to take notes, interview nearby homeowners, or create a record showing what staff saw during inspection. Petitioners’ attorneys and several expert and lay witnesses described concerns about W.R. Grace’s described plans for a small “pyrolysis pilot plant” and related permit applications to county and state agencies; they argued DPZ should have investigated the possibility that those activities exceeded the historical research-and-development activities on site.

DPZ’s counsel and the department director, Linda Eisenberg, told the board the department reviewed the complaint, conducted a site visit (including a site visit to Building 30) and determined the record did not support issuing a notice of violation. Zoning staffer Jeff Goins (who conducted the inspection) documented his visit and, according to DPZ, walked the site with an engineer from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Eisenberg told the board that, based on the inspection and the materials DPZ had, the department found no facts warranting a notice of violation under the Howard County zoning regulations and closed the matter.

Both sides sparred over what evidence DPZ had before it and what it should have considered. Petitioners sought to introduce permit applications and state-agency correspondence (including MDE-related materials and an EPA letter) to show planned activities; the department and interested party W.R. Grace objected to admitting some of that material on the ground those items concern prospective or regulatory matters outside the board’s scope for reviewing DPZ’s Sept. 2024 decision. The board admitted many publicly filed documents for identification and reserved rulings about their weight and ultimate admissibility, consistent with the chair’s earlier evidentiary order.

Board members pressed counsel and witnesses about process and scope. The chair reiterated that the board’s role in an appeal is to determine whether DPZ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, whether DPZ committed procedural or substantive legal error, or whether the department acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it closed the complaint. Several witnesses acknowledged that the allegedly prohibited pilot plant was not operating as of Sept. 2024 and that some disputed documents were permit applications rather than executed permits.

The board handled multiple procedural items during the hearing. It denied a motion for reconsideration of an evidentiary-narrowing order (motion to reconsider was made from the petitioners’ counsel), and it accepted the July 31, 2025 meeting minutes. The board also accepted many documentary submissions as public records (some only for identification). Board members and the solicitor flagged that if parties want DPZ’s administrative file, the proper mechanism is a written request under the Maryland Public Information Act.

After hours of testimony and argument, the hearing was continued. The board set a continuation date to reconvene on Sept. 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. to complete testimony (including DPZ’s witness(es)) and receive further argument. The board directed that certain photographs provided by W.R. Grace and included in DPZ’s file be treated as restricted content (a protective order was requested and recorded), and counsel agreed those images would not be publicly disseminated pending the board’s further order.

Why it matters: The appeal tests where the line is drawn between ongoing lawful nonconforming research-and-development activity and a change in use requiring enforcement under local zoning rules. It also tests what process and documentation DPZ must generate when closing a complaint rather than issuing a notice of violation. The outcome will affect neighbors near large industrial sites and how DPZ documents and defends its closeout decisions.

What’s next: The board will resume the hearing Sept. 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Parties identified additional documents for the board’s review and indicated they will present further testimony then, including DPZ witnesses. The board did not make a final decision on the merits at the Aug. 21 session.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the July 31, 2025 meeting minutes (motion moved by Member Faircove; seconded by Member Phillips; vote recorded as Chair Gene Ryan – approve; Member Faircove – approve; Member Harris – approve; Member Phillips – approve). The board denied a motion for reconsideration of the chair’s evidentiary order (motion to reconsider made by petitioners’ counsel; the board voted to deny the motion: Chair Ryan—deny; Faircove—deny; Harris—deny; Phillips—deny).

Sources: hearing transcript, Aug. 21, 2025; DPZ closeout letter (Sept. 13, 2024) and documentary exhibits admitted by the board for identification.