Howard County Board of Appeals Hears Hours of Testimony on Proposed 53‑Unit Senior Apartments in Terra Maria; Decision Set for May 28

The Howard County Board of Appeals on May 21 heard several hours of testimony and public comment on a conditional‑use application by Trotter 5857, LLC to build an age‑restricted apartment building on a roughly 13‑acre parcel at 3173 St. Charles Place in the Terra Maria subdivision in Ellicott City.

Petitioner counsel Tom Cole opened the hearing by saying the project responds to the county’s stated need for senior apartments in HOCO by Design and that the petitioner had amended the proposal, shortening building length and reducing the unit count from 62 to 53. Engineering and architectural witnesses testified the amended exhibit preserves about 8 acres of open space (about 61% of the parcel), meets RED zone density limits for age‑restricted housing (presented as roughly 4.2 units per net acre), and complies with height and bulk calculations. The proposal includes an internal community space of about 3,500 square feet, universal‑design features and a parking plan the petitioner said totals 112 spaces (the zoning minimum cited by staff was about 1.3 spaces per unit, roughly 69 spaces for 53 units).

Engineer Chris Ogle of Benchmark Engineering described the changes to the plan and summarized technical staff findings the petitioner relied on: conservation of most existing forest and a pond on site, retention of steep‑slope buffers where feasible, and a reduction in the building footprint and length. Architect Matthew Herbert showed elevations and sections illustrating stepped massing and material changes intended to break the building’s perceived length; he said the revised elevations keep the structure at the 40‑foot maximum height allowed in the RED district.

Neighbors and Terra Maria HOA representatives gave lengthy opposition testimony. Key objections were that: (1) the proposal could increase traffic and service‑vehicle movements near Saint Charles Place and through neighborhood streets if drivers follow GPS directions; (2) the site sits below neighborhood lots in a topographic bowl and, residents said, tends to channel noise and smoke uphill into the subdivision — neighbors cited earlier incidents (an Airbnb event and the December fire) as examples of sound and smoke traveling into adjacent yards; (3) lighting from a large parking area and round‑the‑clock service vehicles would increase nighttime light and noise; and (4) the building’s scale would change neighborhood character and could depress nearby property values. Several residents requested conditions if the board approves the project, such as permanently blocking the existing “pipe‑stem” driveway to prevent cut‑through traffic, enhanced perimeter landscaping taller than lighting fixtures, and limits on any pathway connections to Terra Maria.

Other parties raised legal and procedural challenges in the hearing. A nearby landowner presented an opposition exhibit arguing that the petition might be untimely and questioned whether record plat density calculations and recorded access restrictions had been properly accounted for. Petitioner counsel and county staff disputed that timeliness objection by pointing to an administrative notification email and the date the hearing examiner’s decision was issued; the board discussed how to treat that preliminary matter and reserved a formal jurisdictional resolution for further consideration.

A repeated point in argument was the role of the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA). Petitioner counsel and the petitioner’s witnesses said questions about a curb cut or access on Baltimore National Pike (Route 40) are decided later in the site‑plan/State Highway process and that the Board of Appeals’ role is limited to the conditional‑use criteria under county code. Opponents countered that approval without SHA or other necessary access permissions could create a development that never obtains the required access or that would adversely affect neighborhood streets; the parties disagreed about the sequencing of approvals.

No final decision was made at the May 21 hearing. The board concluded the record and set a date for deliberation and decision on May 28, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

What the parties told the board (selected details from testimony) - Petitioner: Trotter 5857, LLC presented an amended conditional‑use exhibit showing 53 age‑restricted dwelling units in a multi‑family building, about 3,500 sq ft of internal community area, about 8 acres preserved as open space, and a maximum height of 40 feet. Counsel: Tom Cole. Engineering witness: Chris Ogle (Benchmark Engineering). Architect: Matthew T. Herbert (Design Collective). - Opposition: Multiple Terra Maria residents and HOA representatives (named commenters include Edwin Avent, Denise Geiger, Sherry Cummings, Joel Cummings, Jeffrey Blythe and others) testified about traffic, safety, lighting, noise, and neighborhood character. - Procedural points: An opposition exhibit raised an appeal‑timeliness issue based on dates in the hearing examiner’s decision and the date the appeal was filed. County counsel and petitioner counsel argued the appeal was filed within the 30‑day period measured from the date the decision was issued and circulated; the board did not resolve that jurisdictional issue at the hearing.

What happens next The Board of Appeals will deliberate and is scheduled to decide on the petition at its May 28, 2026 meeting at 6:30 p.m. The board’s determination must apply the conditional‑use criteria in county code; if approved, subsequent steps remain (site plan review, SHA access review, building permits). If denied, the petitioner may have administrative or judicial remedies available under the rules in Chapter 16 and related sections of the county code.

Quotation highlights - "Howard County is in desperate need of senior apartments," petitioner counsel Tom Cole said in his opening statement as he framed the project’s purpose and the reason for a concentrated apartment design rather than cottage sprawl. (Tom Cole) - "This is about putting a property to its highest and best use," Cole told the board, adding the petitioner had corrected earlier plan errors and reduced unit count. (Tom Cole) - "Our streets were built for families, not for daily volume that a 53‑unit facility brings," resident Edwin Avent told the board during public comment, citing safety concerns for children and school bus routes. (Edwin Avent) - "You have an amphitheater — when noise and smoke happen down there, it comes up to our homes," Terra Maria resident Jeffrey Blythe testified, describing prior events and saying the topography amplifies sound. (Jeffrey Blythe)

Limitations and factual sourcing This article reports only what was said at the May 21 Board of Appeals hearing (transcript and exhibits referenced at the hearing). Statements about SHA practice, technical findings in the staff report, or final legal conclusions are attributed to the speakers who made them. The board has not yet rendered a decision; procedural dates and the items described above are taken from the hearing record.