Howard County Council hears public testimony on Long Reach Village Center urban renewal and proposed land sale

The Howard County Council on Jan. 21 held a legislative public hearing on Council Resolution 161-2024, a concept approval for an urban renewal plan for Long Reach Village Center, and Council Resolution 162-2024, authorizing conveyance of approximately 7.71 acres at 8775 Cloudly Court to Columbia Concepts LLC. The hearing, held in the Banneker Room and streamed online, collected testimony from community organizations, residents and county staff ahead of a scheduled final legislative session on Feb. 3.

Supporters said the Columbia Concepts plan would bring housing, community services and retail to the village center. Brian Schefter, Deputy Chief of Staff for the county administration, told the council the proposal would include “a strong mix of for‑sale and for‑rent housing, townhomes and senior housing,” a senior center and a grocery store, and highlighted “a 100,000 square foot multi‑sport facility” and about “150,000 square feet of retail space.” Brian Kim, managing director of Columbia Concepts LLC, described the project, which the development team calls Destination Longreach, as including “more than 330 residential, rental and for sale housing” and community space for nonprofits and a revived arts center.

Local nonprofit leaders said the plan must preserve existing community services. Tracy Bridal, testifying on behalf of the Community Action Council of Howard County, said the Bauder Education Center — a county‑supported early childhood and two‑generation services program that has served more than 300 children since 2021 — “must stay” in the village center and that Columbia Concepts had assured CAC of continued space. Erica Chavarria, founder and executive director of Columbia Community Care, said her organization and hundreds of families rely on Long Reach for food distribution and client services and urged council support. Jackie Yang of the Housing Affordability Coalition praised the preservation‑and‑redevelopment approach and said the plan would include units affordable at 60% of area median income and accessibility features, while also asking for additional detail on how many units would meet specific affordability levels.

Not all testimony was supportive. Joel Horowitz said the village center parcels were never legally declared blighted under the county code and urged the council to require signed agreements with adjacent parcel owners — including the Columbia Association, Richburn Liquors and the former DeliTowne site — before approving an urban renewal plan for the area. Horowitz asked how the project would proceed if Columbia Concepts does not acquire those privately held parcels. Resident Matt Wilhite and others questioned the fiscal prudence of conveying county‑owned land and asked whether the proposed sale represented the best value for taxpayers.

County staff described the legal and procedural basis for the conveyance request. Emily Iyaki, Chief of the Real Estate Services Division, said the county acquired the parcel in 2014–2015 under an earlier urban renewal action (Council Resolution 22-2014), the Department of Public Works determined the county no longer needs the specific property for public purposes, and the county executed a request for proposals that produced Columbia Concepts as the selected purchaser. Iyaki also told the council it may waive advertising and bidding requirements under section 4201 of the Howard County Code at the county executive’s request.

Several speakers and the developer emphasized next steps. Schefter and Kim said concept approval would be followed by the Major Village Center redevelopment review process and a zoning board action; Kim said the development team will work with adjacent landowners and the community in preparing a detailed plan, preliminary financing and partnerships. Council materials and the chair’s opening remarks noted a legislative session for final consideration of the resolutions is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 3 at 7 p.m.

No final vote on CR 161 or CR 162 was taken at the hearing. The council’s hearing record shows the materials read into the record and the public testimony; councilmembers asked for additional information on property ownership, affordability percentages, accessibility commitments and project financing.

The hearing demonstrated local support for preserving nonprofit services on site and for adding retail and recreational facilities, while raising outstanding questions about parcel assemblage, the legal blight finding cited in urban renewal law and the timing of formal sales. The council will consider the record and the documents submitted prior to its Feb. 3 legislative session for final action.