Howard County council hears hours of public concern over proposed Board of Appeals rules

The Howard County Council received sustained public comment and mixed recommendations on Council Bill 57-2025, which would adopt updated rules of procedure for the county Board of Appeals.

Supporters of rewriting the rules said the Board of Appeals needed modernized procedures and clearer guidance; critics and many residents urged more fundamental reforms, saying the board has lost public confidence and is frequently inaccessible to ordinary residents.

The Board of Appeals’ chair, Gene Ryan, told the council the rules “haven’t been updated in over 35 years” and said the board spent months drafting revisions. “The rules were submitted tonight … were carefully developed, thoroughly evaluated, and formally adopted,” Ryan said, urging council consideration and reminding members the board is charged with conducting quasi-judicial appeals on land use and other matters.

But that explanation prompted lengthy testimony from residents and civic groups who described repeated, painful encounters with the board. Stuart Cohn, president of the Howard County Citizens Association, said the county should “re-examine the current process as business as usual should not continue.” Cohn and others recommended either substantially rewriting the rules or moving more appeals work to the hearing examiner, who is a legally trained official, to reduce cost, delay and perceived partiality.

Several objectors described episodes from an ongoing, high-profile conditional-use matter over a proposed go-kart track in Highland that they say demonstrates broader problems with the board’s procedures. Speakers said the board has at times excluded relevant expert or documentary evidence, relied on informal internet searches as a basis for interpreting zoning terms, and reached results that felt arbitrary to nearby residents. Attorney and longtime local activist Chris Alleva called the board’s past practice “arbitrary” and “capricious,” and urged stronger legal tethering of decisions.

Multiple speakers urged the council to address conflicts of interest, member training, and transparency. Lynn Furcolb, a current board member, said the new rules include an alternate-member process designed to avoid tied votes when membership changes suddenly; opponents pointed out the county Office of Law had raised legal concerns about the alternate-member proposal. Several commenters recommended that the council review legal sufficiency before approving the rules or that the council send the rules back for revision.

Council members acknowledged the depth of testimony and the complexity of competing suggestions. Several council members said a work session would be scheduled to examine legal sufficiency and the practical effects of proposed changes, and to let staff draft amendments. The council did not take a final vote at the public hearing; the rules remain before the council for consideration.

Supporters of the draft rules said modernization would help all parties navigate a more predictable appeals process; opponents said the draft does not address fundamental problems and recommended stronger remedies such as a clearer role for the hearing examiner or stricter requirements for board member qualifications and conflict disclosures.

The public hearing included dozens of speakers, many of them neighbors or attorneys who have recently participated in Board of Appeals hearings. Multiple commenters urged the council to prioritize transparency, expand orientation and training for board members, and require third-party technical reviews where DPZ lacks expertise.

The council signaled it would hold follow-up sessions to examine legal sufficiency and consider edits requested by the Office of Law and public commenters.