Howard County Zoning Board approves rezoning and site plan for Route 1 frontage, amid cemetery objections

The Howard County Zoning Board voted to rezone the Route 1 frontage property at 7253 Washington Boulevard (ZB‑1130, Corridor Square LLC) from Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) to B‑2 (Business General) and approved a documented site plan for a convenience store, motor vehicle fueling facility and car wash, subject to conditions intended to preserve most of the adjacent Memorial Park.

The board first voted that the 2013 comprehensive zoning designation was a «mistake» and that the B‑2 district is an appropriate replacement; that motion passed on a 3–2 vote. The board then adopted the documented site plan and its recommended conditions by a 4–1 vote. Conditions recorded in the board order include a requirement to record restrictive covenants preserving roughly four acres of Memorial Park in perpetuity, the applicant’s agreement to fund necessary Route 1 frontage improvements (including any new signalized intersection if approved by the State Highway Administration), additional perimeter landscaping and a requirement that all listed conditions be met before the first use‑and‑occupancy permit is issued. The applicant also agreed to pay for the disinterment and reinterment of any pet burial located in the redevelopment area when a petitioner can identify the plot by deed.

Why it mattered: The vote followed extensive oral exceptions and testimony about the measurement method used to determine TOD eligibility and fierce public concern about potential impacts to Rosebond Hirsch Memorial Park. Opponents called the proposal a threat to a historic cemetery and alleged prior disinterment activity on the site; proponents and the hearing examiner said the record supports a mistake finding and that the conditions will protect the memorial space while allowing redevelopment of a blighted Route 1 frontage.

Protesters’ case: David Zinner, a longtime cemetery‑preservation advocate who identified himself to the board, urged denial and asked for stronger protections. "If this plan is approved, the petitioner intends to destroy one‑third of the Rosebond Hirsch Memorial Park," he told the board, adding that volunteers have maintained the park for years and that he personally observed holes and piled monuments consistent with disinterment. Zinner cited Howard County Code §16‑1304 and state criminal statutes and said the matter should not be handled by zoning alone but must be resolved in a way that preserves graves and clarifies title.

Petitioner’s and counsel’s position: Corridor Square LLC’s attorney, Chris DiCarlo, told the board the hearing examiner conducted a full evidentiary record and that the board’s role was to determine whether the report is supported by substantial evidence. DiCarlo said the documented site plan process narrows allowed uses and that subsequent technical reviews (stormwater, SHA, cemetery accommodation plan, historic preservation review) will be required at the site development‑plan stages. He emphasized the applicant’s voluntary conditions, including preservation commitments and proposed infrastructure improvements, and said those commitments are intended to prevent any shovel from going into the ground until requirements are met.

Legal and measurement dispute: Attorneys for the protestants argued the TOD 3,500‑foot measurement should be taken from parcel borders, not from the station building or parking area, and that B‑2 is incompatible with Route 1 corridor policies. The hearing examiner and petitioner relied on testimony and the record to interpret the TOD purpose statement as measuring to the MARC station, and the board ultimately accepted the hearing examiner’s findings.

Enforcement and timing: Board members debated enforcement mechanisms and how to ensure conditions are not waived without return to the board. The final order places conditions on the documented site plan and requires the petitioner to record them so they appear in development review; the board directed that the conditions be met before a first use‑and‑occupancy permit is issued.

Dissenting view: Board member Miss Walsh cast the lone dissent in the final site‑plan vote and said she was "heartsick" at the decision and skeptical that the result would be dignified or consistent with the general plan. Other members said the preservation covenants, mausoleum/memorial requirement and other conditions represent significant protections and that the frontage is blighted and ready for reinvestment.

What’s next: The order adopted by the board will be prepared and transmitted. The conditions must be integrated into subsequent site development‑plan reviews and technical approvals (stormwater, SHA, cemetery preservation review and historic‑preservation review) before any building permits or occupancy are granted.