Howard County hearing examines DPZ closeout letter after W.R. Grace proposes pilot plastics recycling unit

Howard County’s zoning hearing examiner heard testimony April 29 in an administrative appeal by Aidan and Sarah Morrell challenging a Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) closeout letter dated Sept. 13, 2024, that concluded no zoning violation existed at W.R. Grace’s campus in relation to an applicant-submitted permit for a pilot-scale plastics conversion process. Appellants argued the pilot process is materially different from the site’s long-standing research-and-development (R&D) nonconforming use and should have prompted closer DPZ review; the county’s director of planning and zoning said the agency based its closeout on an inspection of existing on-site operations.

The appeal matters because DPZ’s closeout letter is the agency’s formal determination that no unlawful change or extension of use had occurred; appellants say DPZ’s review was limited to a broad label of “research and development” instead of a fact-specific evaluation of activities, emissions risk and whether the pilot process is an enlargement or change in the character of use that triggers zoning review. The hearing record includes technical testimony about facility operations, air-permit review, human-health risks and the county’s zoning rules for nonconforming uses.

Key facts from the hearing: - The appeal challenges DPZ’s Sept. 13, 2024 closeout letter (referenced in the record) regarding Building 30 at the W.R. Grace site and a permit application to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Appellants cited an MDE permit referenced in the record (permit number shown in materials as 27013A). The appeal hearing was the second day of proceedings and the parties agreed to file written legal memoranda after the evidentiary record closed.

- DPZ Director Linda Eisenberg testified that an on-site inspection was conducted and that a Maryland Department of the Environment staff member joined the DPZ inspector for the September site visit. Eisenberg said the closeout letter was based on existing, observed operations and not on prospective activity. "It was not based off of prospective operations on the site," Eisenberg said.

- Appellants’ witnesses described the proposed pilot plastics conversion as capable of producing emissions of concern. Dr. Shannon Jones, a toxicologist, testified that pyrolysis and similar high‑temperature conversion processes can release volatile organic compounds, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), dioxins and other pollutants depending on feedstock. Jones testified, "There are no safe levels of dioxin exposure because they do bioaccumulate," and said residents within approximately 200 feet of the proposed Building 30 footprint could be exposed to emissions the witness judged potentially harmful, especially children and people with preexisting respiratory disease.

- W.R. Grace witnesses described the proposed system as a catalytic conversion process with engineered controls. Manu Rego, a licensing-department employee, said the company’s design sends gases to a thermal oxidizer that is intended to convert process gases to carbon dioxide and water and that "all the emissions that our neighbors are going to see is only CO2 and water, nothing else." Rego described feedstock screening (e.g., excluding PFAS) and said the company’s modeling for the permit used conservative, worst-case numbers.

- Experts and counsel disputed terminology and regulatory scope. Appellants and their consultants argued the county must evaluate the specific character, scale and risks of the proposed R&D activity to determine whether a nonconforming use has been extended or altered under Howard County Zoning Regulations §129. Appellant Aidan Morrell testified the county relied on a broad label rather than a factual inquiry: "The law doesn't care what the use is called, it cares what it does," he said.

- DPZ’s process and the role of MDE: DPZ witnesses explained the department’s usual zoning-complaint process—online complaint intake, field inspection and a determination based on observed on-site activities. DPZ said MDE evaluates air permits and emission risks; appellants argued DPZ still must assess compatibility of a use with surrounding neighborhoods even where MDE handles air-permit review.

- Procedural note: Counsel agreed the parties would submit legal memoranda rather than deliver closing argument in person. Deadlines set on the record (exhibit list and briefing schedule) will govern further documentary submissions and the record closure.

What was disputed and unresolved in the hearing: - Whether the proposed pilot-scale process is a permissible evolution of a long-standing R&D nonconforming use or a material change/extension requiring DPZ authorization. Robert Vogel, a civil engineer who reviewed the site history, testified that the campus has hosted R&D uses since the 1950s and that R&D remained the primary campus use after regulatory changes. Vogel said DPZ routinely assesses physical expansions (building or parking changes) under §129(E) but does not dissect internal room-by-room operations; he characterized on-site auxiliary functions as part of a research campus rather than separate principal uses.

- The extent to which DPZ’s September inspection relied on MDE staff expertise. DPZ testified an MDE staff member accompanied the county inspector for the September site visit, but the record does not identify that MDE participant by name in the DPZ notes admitted into evidence; DPZ’s director said the department relied on field inspection observations when issuing the closeout letter.

- Air-quality and health risk uncertainty. Appellant experts stated that pilot-scale thermal conversion can produce particulate matter, volatile organics, and persistent pollutants that pose short- and long-term health risks to sensitive groups; W.R. Grace’s witnesses described engineered controls and permit-modeled limits and disputed the likelihood of off-site impacts at the levels alleged.

Where the record goes next: Parties agreed to file memoranda of law (appellant due May 16, respondent due June 2, reply due June 13 as recorded on the hearing transcript). The hearing examiner will issue a written decision after reviewing the evidentiary record and legal submissions.

Why this matters: The case tests how local zoning authorities apply nonconforming-use rules to contemporary R&D facilities that use industrial-scale chemical conversion technologies, and it also highlights the boundary between land‑use compatibility review (a zoning question) and technical emissions evaluation (typically handled by environmental regulators such as MDE and EPA). The outcome could affect how DPZ approaches inspections and the depth of factual inquiry required when a landowner’s long‑running R&D activity appears to change in method, scale or potential off‑site effects.

Ending note: The hearing record contains technical and procedural materials (MDE permit references, building-permit records, witness CVs and the DPZ closeout letter). Parties will submit legal memoranda under the timetable recorded at the hearing; the examiner’s written order will follow those filings.