Howard County hearing: developer and DPZ dispute nature-trail alignment for Simpson Oaks; neighbors say they weren’t notified

Simpson Oaks CRP 3 LLC continued an administrative appeal on Aug. 19 in front of the Howard County hearing examiner over the alignment of a neighborhood nature trail required under prior community enhancement floating-zone approvals for the development at 7600 Grace Drive (SDP 19-025).

The developer’s counsel and engineering witness told the hearing the zoning board adopted sketch plan S15007 in a Nov. 10, 2016 decision order as the controlling design concept plan and that the sketch plan depicts the trail terminating at Grace Drive and tying into an existing bike lane rather than continuing across Cedar Lane toward Robinson Nature Center. ‘‘I wouldn't even put my seal on a pedestrian pathway going adjacent to a floodplain river,’’ said Robert Vogel, the engineering consultant for the petitioner, describing why he judged DPZ’s requested alignment to be unsafe and impractical.

The dispute traces to two zoning-board orders. An initial decision and concept plan from 2015 was later superseded, the petitioner said, when the zoning board adopted S15007 as the new design concept. DPZ’s review letter dated May 8, 2025 — entered into the hearing record as the county’s comment letter on SDP 19-025 — requested a trail alignment that would cross Cedar Lane, traverse near an on-ramp and a floodplain tunnel and connect to pathways toward Robinson Nature Center. The petitioner said that alignment was never proposed in the sketch plan the zoning board adopted and that DPZ did not cite legal or factual authority showing the developer must build that connection.

Neighbors who testified told the hearing they learned of the session only shortly before it occurred and urged better notice from the developer and county. ‘‘We were not notified,’’ said Anwar Hassan, a Cedar Creek resident, asserting the neighborhood did not receive the posting or direct notices they expect. Another resident, who identified himself as HOA president, said the trail connection to Robinson Nature Center was a selling point when he moved into the neighborhood.

Hearing-examiner procedure and publicity were discussed at the hearing. The petitioner’s counsel stated the property on which DPZ sought extra-path connectivity is not owned by the appellant and that, under county practice, when posting a physical sign on the subject parcel is not possible the Department of Planning and Zoning provides legal notice through publication in the Baltimore Sun (the county’s paper of record); the hearing examiner cited proof of publication in the record and said the record would be closed and a decision would follow.

Residents pressed technical and substantive questions about alternatives that would preserve a robust connection to Robinson Nature Center without the safety and floodplain concerns Vogel described: widening a bridge, building an expensive new crossing, or other solutions that would likely require separate engineering, permitting and funding. The petitioner and its engineer said the zoning-board–adopted sketch plan (S15007) governs developer obligations and that any substantial change to the sketch plan would require returning to the zoning board.

The hearing was presented as an administrative appeal (case H20D) of DPZ’s comment letter on SDP 19-025. The hearing examiner accepted documentary exhibits into the record, including the sketch plan S15007 (exhibit 2), the DPZ comment letter dated 05/08/2025 (exhibit 3), and the Nov. 10, 2016 order adopting S15007 (exhibit 6). At the close of testimony the hearing examiner closed the record and said a written decision would be issued later.

The hearing did not include a final county vote or an immediate enforcement action; the outcome will be determined in the examiner’s forthcoming written ruling based on the administrative record.