Baltimore County panel approves lower-profile garage design after residents call out 'illegal' construction in Corbett Village
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After two years of back-and-forth and testimony calling the work 'illegal,' the Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the Corbett Village garage using the simpler 'option A' roof profile, while noting screening and material questions remain.
The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to approve a revised design for a detached garage at 16223 Corbett Village Lane on a motion to adopt staff-recommended option A, after residents testified that prior construction had violated county rules.
"In 10 days, it will be 2 years since Costa's illegal construction was revealed," resident Christina Altman told the commission, summarizing long-standing neighborhood concerns and urging stricter enforcement. Andrew Clemens, another nearby resident, said the latest plans were "better than anything that has been presented previously" but warned that screening shown on plans relies on voluntary plantings the commission cannot enforce.
Property owners Nick and Mrs. Costa responded that they had worked with staff and submitted three lower-height roof options after earlier denials and a stop-work order (code enforcement CB2300746). Mr. Costa said the owners included photos of similar roof pitches in the neighborhood and examples of vehicle clearance in the existing garage.
Commissioners discussed durability and availability of some shingle types, the visual prominence of the structure on a hill, and whether plantings could reliably screen views from Corbett Lane. Multiple commissioners said option A — a simple gable with a top plate at 9 feet, 5 inches — was the least visually intrusive choice.
Ed Hoard moved to approve option A and issue a certificate of appropriateness; John Holman seconded. The roll-call vote recorded a majority in favor with Wendy MacIver recorded as abstaining earlier in the meeting before entering a chat vote; the commission proceeded to approve the final plan, with staff directed to follow up on material selection and screening.
The commission’s action approves the design as submitted (option A) while staff noted that if an applicant later selects materials that differ from what was reviewed, the commission may require further review. No demolition or additional enforcement action was ordered at the meeting; the record includes prior references to county code enforcement and earlier administrative judicial review.
The property owners were wished "good luck" by the chair and told the commission hoped not to see the matter return soon.