Hearing examiner leaves record open on Cedar Village age-restricted housing proposal in Clarksville

The Howard County hearing examiner kept the record open after an evidentiary hearing in April 2025 on a conditional use petition for a 26-unit age-restricted housing development at 10879 Clarksville Pike in Clarksville.

The petitioner seeks a conditional use (BA 24-032 C) to build 26 age-restricted dwelling units on a parcel the applicant’s civil engineer described as “a little over 5 acres,” with a boundary survey showing 5.11 acres and a net developable area of 4.04 acres after subtracting Lot 163 (1.072 acres). John Carney, a civil engineer for Benchmark Engineering, said the resulting density would be about 6.44 dwelling units per acre, below the 7 dwelling-units-per-acre maximum cited in the technical staff report for age-restricted (ARH) development in the RSC zone.

The hearing examiner told the applicant to submit four items to close the record: (1) a final, dated and signed landscape plan consistent with Design Advisory Panel (DAP) responses; (2) a corrected and signed DAP response letter with the accurate DAP meeting date; (3) a revised conditional‑use/site plan showing the location of five on-street parking spaces to address a noted parking shortfall; and (4) a letter from the project’s landscape architect clarifying which DAP recommendations will be adopted. The examiner said that “upon receipt of those 4 items, a decision and order will be forthcoming.”

What the plan proposes and what was contested

The proposal calls for 16 duplex units and two groups of four attached units (four‑unit quads), a community building near the entrance, internal streets with a cul‑de‑sac sized for emergency vehicles, landscape buffers along Route 108, forest conservation areas and stormwater management using micro‑bioretention facilities and dry wells. Carney described the roof runoff being routed to dry wells and driveways/cul‑de‑sac runoff routed to a bioretention area near Route 108.

The application, as described by the applicant’s team, preserves roughly two acres (about 49%) as open space, exceeding the 35% requirement identified in the staff report. Carney said several “specimen trees” exist on the site; the team intends to retain several but asked to remove three (identified verbally in the hearing as specimens 1, 4 and 7) because they conflict with access and building locations. The plan shows three forest conservation areas, including an area that overlaps an identified wetland and buffer.

Design Advisory Panel (DAP) comments and applicant responses

The project team discussed DAP comments about reorienting units that face Route 108, simplifying front elevations, reorienting the community building entrance to face parking, and strengthening the Route 108 buffer. The applicant’s representative said the setback and build‑to requirements prevented rotating the units to face the internal road and that some massing and facade simplifications were made. Ron Brasher of Brashear Design said the team “simplified our gabled roofs” and revised facade articulation in response to DAP; Victoria Croisher Planthold, who said she was project manager for Brashear Design’s DAP submission, confirmed additional plantings were proposed along internal streets and around the bioretention pond.

Parking, access and traffic

The technical staff report noted a five-space parking shortfall. Carney confirmed the applicant intends to rely on indented on‑street parking and the examiner required the applicant to mark the five spaces on a revised plan. The county design manual section cited by staff (section 2.5, volume 3) calls for a 75-foot corner clearance; Carney said the plan provides 85 feet and that precise sight‑distance analysis is conducted at the site‑plan stage.

Public concerns and technical answers

Neighbors who spoke at the hearing raised concerns about tree removal, erosion and runoff toward existing townhouses in Beech Creek, privacy where the new units would back up to existing yards, construction noise and traffic. Trina Bork, a Beech Creek resident, asked, “How are you handling water runoff and erosion?” Carney described rooftop dry wells roughly 5 feet deep and bioretention facilities sized to treat roof and roadway runoff and said the cul‑de‑sac and driveways would drain toward the bioretention area near Route 108. Resident Robert Austin asked whether the existing tree line behind homes would remain; Carney and the applicant said the plan designates a honeycomb‑hatched forest retention area that will keep many existing trees in perpetuity, while clearing limited areas for units and access.

The applicant acknowledged that a previously approved conditional use for one on‑site lot (BA 12‑008‑C, a childcare facility approved 05/24/2012) was never constructed, in part because of the cost of required frontage improvements along Route 108. The petitioner’s attorney and engineer said Lot 163 (record plat 68‑55) had been discussed in the staff report and by DPZ as a potential open‑space lot in error; the applicant voluntarily subtracted Lot 163 from its density calculation and will pursue consolidation of parcels if the conditional use is approved.

Universal design and age‑restricted requirements

Carney testified that the proposal will provide all required universal‑design items for the ARH units. The project will be an age‑restricted community enforced through covenants and the homeowners association; the applicant noted Howard County rules and covenants limit stays by children (the petitioner said short visitor stays are allowed but that the development is restricted to older adults). One attendee asked about enforcement and visits; the applicant said covenants and HOA rules, together with county provisions, govern occupancy and visits.

Process and next steps

The hearing was treated as an evidentiary hearing. The examiner closed testimony but left the record open for the four items listed above. The examiner said a decision and order will follow after the record items are submitted. The applicant and staff also noted that detailed site‑plan review, permitting and any traffic or stormwater technical studies occur after a conditional‑use approval and before construction; Carney estimated construction — if approved and permitted — could take about a year to a year‑and‑a‑half, and said that construction must comply with county noise ordinances.

Ending

The hearing provides the county’s technical reviewers and neighbors an opportunity to see revised landscaping, parking and technical responses before a final decision. The hearing examiner’s direction to submit the dated/signed DAP response, a finalized landscape plan, a marked site plan showing on‑street parking and a landscape‑architect letter will form the next record for the case (BA 24‑032 C).