Hearing examiner closes record on variance request to reduce side setback for proposed Laurel deck

A Howard County hearing examiner closed the record and heard testimony on a petition to reduce a side-yard setback so the owner can build a deck at 9260 Homestretch Court in Laurel.

The petitioner seeks relief from section 110.4(d) to allow a side setback of 3.7 feet in lieu of the required 7.5 feet for a proposed 7-by-18-foot deck, the examiner said at the start of the hearing. Counsel for the petitioner identified the owner’s representative in the record and said the project’s civil engineer would testify.

Sam Alomer, a civil engineer and president of Mildenburg, Bowender and Associates, testified that he prepared the variance exhibit and described the site. He said the lot is irregularly shaped — roughly triangular — about 0.138 acres and located at the end of a cul-de-sac, with a motel bordering the rear along Route 1. Alomer confirmed the property is zoned RSC (Residential Single Cluster) and that the recorded plat shows a 7.5-foot side building restriction line (BRL) at the location where the deck is proposed.

Alomer said the written plat designations and the house orientation mean the area that is practically the back of the home is recorded as the side lot line, which constrains where a usable deck can be located. He testified strict compliance with the 7.5-foot side setback would leave only an impractical 4-by-18-foot area for any deck, whereas the proposed 7-by-18-foot deck is a commonly built, modest residential size.

Counsel and the engineer introduced and had admitted several exhibits into the record: the subdivision plat (identified in the hearing as the Whiskey Bottom Point plat) and GIS aerial imagery (petitioner exhibits 1 and 2). The counsel indicated a revised plan dated June 7, 2024 had been filed and that it was intended to address agency comments.

Alomer told the hearing the Development Engineering Division (DED) had flagged that any footings or foundations placed in the public drainage easement would require a waiver. He said the plan was revised to move columns and foundations outside the drainage easement so there would be no construction within the easement area; the deck would have a small overhang that extends into the easement but with foundations outside it. He said all other reviewing agencies provided favorable comments.

On neighborhood impacts, Alomer testified the deck would be barely visible from most adjacent properties, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and would not substantially impair the development or use of adjoining lots. He said the petitioner did not create the subdivision and purchased the home after it was recorded.

Before closing the record, the hearing examiner asked for a diagram showing the kitchen door and the proposed deck location; the participants agreed to mark that screenshot as an additional exhibit (Exhibit 3). Counsel then rested and the hearing examiner closed the record, saying she would issue a written decision within 30 days.

No vote or final ruling was announced at the hearing; the examiner’s forthcoming written decision will state whether the requested setback relief is granted, denied, or conditioned.