Howard County hearing on conditional use for J and J Property Services draws neighbors' objections

Howard County Zoning Hearing Examiner Catherine Taylor heard testimony on a petition from J and J Property Services LLC owner Peter Kenji Price seeking conditional-use approval to park contractor equipment on his property at Old Station Court.

Price told the examiner he seeks a 44-by-35-foot parking area (labeled "P2" on the revised site plan) behind a detached garage to store one landscape dump truck, a dump trailer, a roll‑off dump trailer and two 13‑yard roll‑off bins, and said he and one business partner would be the only people operating the vehicles. "I don't want them on my property," Price said when asked whether full roll‑off bins would remain onsite, adding he can store some equipment offsite and will try to keep trips and on‑site storage minimal.

Neighbors who testified said the use is incompatible with the residential character of Old Station Court, citing school bus stops, children playing in the street, limited sight distances on local hills, potential noise and odor from refuse or construction debris, and impacts on property values. "If you grant this petition, there will be 1 beneficiary, mister Price, and there will be 41 people who are adversely impacted by this application," resident John Carlo said.

Why it matters: The hearing examined whether the proposed storage and limited on‑site activity comply with Howard County zoning regulations and whether any adverse impacts on adjacent residences can be mitigated by conditions. The Hearing Examiner received documentary evidence from the petitioner and multiple opposition exhibits and accepted a neighborhood petition (marked as Opposition 1) into the record.

Hearing record and key disputed facts

- Proposed area and equipment: Price described Parking Area P2 as approximately 44 feet by 35 feet, located behind his detached garage, and said the two roll‑off bins are 13‑yard units. He said the trailers and bins would not normally be left full on the property and that the operation is currently very small, with no employees beyond himself and a partner, Joe Spade.

- Traffic and trips: The transcript includes differing references to allowable trip counts for rural/RC lots three acres or larger; Price and neighbors referenced county limits during questioning but did not cite a specific code section at the hearing. Price said he expects far fewer trips than whatever the regulatory cap may be and estimated "less than 3 trips back and forth a week" in current practice.

- Screening, visibility and topography: Price and multiple neighbors discussed tree lines and elevation differences. Price said his lot sits higher than neighbors' lots and that trees and the detached garage hide the parking area from view; neighbors and the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) materials show broken tree lines in places and aerial photos with seasonal variation. The DPZ technical staff report (in the record) notes site topography and reviews setbacks; the Hearing Examiner asked Price to adjust the proposed parking area to meet a minimum 100‑foot separation noted in the staff report and Price agreed to reduce the P2 length by 13 feet to increase the setback.

- Uses and materials: Witnesses questioned whether the activity would be primarily landscaping, yard‑cleanup, or debris/removal work; petitioner described yard‑cleanup and construction debris as among current uses for roll‑off bins. Neighbors expressed concern about mud, loose debris or runoff reaching a tributary that flows to the Patapsco River; an opposition exhibit included a map and photographs showing a drainage feature behind parcels.

Procedural actions taken at the hearing

- Hearing Examiner Taylor accepted documents already in the record (petition, revised plan, DPZ staff report and agency comments) and marked neighborhood submissions and photographs presented by opponents as exhibits (opposition exhibits, including Opposition 1). She stated she would assign weight to the petition and opposition materials as appropriate.

- The Hearing Examiner closed the evidentiary record at the end of testimony and said a written decision and order will be issued within 30 days.

What petitioners and opponents said

Price emphasized that the storage area would be concealed by his garage and elevation, that he was limiting vehicles and trips while the business is small, and that he preferred to move some equipment offsite for security. "We are very careful about the amount of vehicles... we're very cautious," Price said when describing neighborhood driving practices.

Neighbors repeatedly sought concrete limits and assurances on frequency of trips, whether full roll‑off bins would be stored onsite, screening measures and whether any approval would remain with the property if ownership changed. Several neighbors urged denial or conditions that would strictly limit on‑site storage, citing school bus stops, children in the street and potential effects on property values.

Outstanding factors and next steps

The Hearing Examiner will review the record, including the revised plan and opposition exhibits, and issue a written decision and order. The examiner told participants that the decision will be posted on the county website and mailed to those who signed the hearing attendance list within 30 days. No final approval or denial was announced at the hearing.

Ending: The case remains under consideration; neighbors and the petitioner should receive the examiner's written decision when it is issued, and either party may pursue further remedies available under county rules after that decision. The transcript and exhibits remain part of the administrative record for BA24‑025C.