Palmetto Group seeks rezoning of two Dorsey Road parcels after hearing on mapping, wetlands and marketability

A Howard County hearing examiner heard evidence March 3 in Case 1131 on a Palmetto Group petition to change two parcels at 6871–6875 Dorsey Road from the county’s Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) district to a residential classification (Petitioner asked for R‑12, and in the alternative RSC). The parties presented maps, listing histories, engineering sketches and testimony about environmental constraints and market failure.

Why it matters: The outcome will determine whether two small, irregular lots that petitioners say were misdepicted on the county’s comprehensive zoning maps should be reclassified so they can be built as single‑family homes under local residential rules. Petitioner counsel argued the parcels are functionally unbuildable under TOD and that the county should correct a “mistake” in the comprehensive zoning map or, alternatively, adopt a more appropriate residential district (RSC) that fits the lots’ size and shape.

Petitioner’s case and owner testimony Petitioner counsel told the examiner the mistake claim is two‑pronged: the parcels were not shown as separate subparcels on the comprehensive zoning map carried into 2013, and factual assumptions about developability and market demand were incorrect. Counsel said the lots are under 9,000 square feet each and that, because of a stormwater management facility, wetlands and a stream buffer behind the parcels, there is no safe, walkable connection to the larger TOD area or to the MARC station the TOD is intended to serve.

Palmetto Group president Eric Burz testified he owns one of the subject parcels and has a contract to buy the adjacent lot. He described decades of marketing efforts—multiple MLS listings, an auction with no bids, and a 2014 commercial brokerage effort—that produced no sustained offers. "I can't build a house there," Burz said, summarizing his view that the TOD zoning has deprived him of a reasonable economic use of the property. Counsel introduced an internal county email showing unpaid taxes on the adjacent owner’s parcel of roughly $67,444 (as of 04/22/2025), a figure witnesses said will grow with interest and future assessments.

Engineering and planning testimony Professional land surveyor Michael Van Sant, called by the petitioner, described the stormwater management pond, the outfall, and wetlands behind the lots and testified that any pedestrian or internal TOD connection would require environmental waivers and mitigation that make TOD development impractical. Van Sant said the RSC district (6,000‑sq‑ft minimum lot size) would better fit the historic, irregular lot pattern than R‑12 (12,000‑sq‑ft minimum), and that commercial or office development under TOD would trigger parking and stormwater constraints the parcels cannot satisfy.

A representative of the Department of Planning and Zoning, Division Chief Julia Sauer, testified for county staff. Sauer said Dorsey Road is a major collector and that, when no other access is available, residential driveways from that classification can be permitted if sight lines and safety permit. She also noted the TOD district’s intent: it favors comprehensively planned, larger developments near transit and includes a 3‑acre minimum for certain residential uses and a minimum density metric (20 units per net acre). Sauer said the two parcels—together roughly 0.4 acres—would add about eight dwelling units on paper but would not by themselves meet TOD thresholds or constitute a "key parcel" for a larger TOD redevelopment.

Procedural notes and protestant testimony Protestant Joel Hurwitz preserved an objection/motion challenging the hearing examiner’s and zoning counsel’s appointment; the examiner said she would address that argument in her written report. Hurwitz also urged that the record make clear how small unbuildable TOD parcels could be handled at the council or regulatory level to avoid land staying fallow.

What remains and next steps No final rezoning decision was made. The hearing examiner closed the evidentiary portion of the record but left the record open for legal memoranda; all parties were ordered to file memoranda by March 17 (by 04:00). The examiner said she will issue a written report after reviewing the record and the submitted legal briefs.

The case centers on two factual disputes: whether the maps and facts before the council in the comprehensive rezoning process were inaccurate in a way that satisfies Maryland law on "change or mistake," and whether correcting that error should result in a different zoning classification for the parcels. The hearing record includes inventories of prior listings, an auction log, county GIS/pictometry maps, site development sheets, and engineering sketches offered by the petitioner; DPZ provided the interpretive policy context for TOD minimum size and density requirements.

Next procedural step: legal memoranda due March 17; the hearing examiner's written report will follow.