Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant challenges DPZ finding that Columbia garage complies with Howard County zoning
Summary
An appellant disputed a March 10, 2026 DPZ closeout letter that found no zoning violations at 10450 Waterfowl Terrace, saying the permit approval relied on unverified owner statements and that DPZ measurements lacked benchmarks; DPZ witnesses testified their inspections and measurements supported the no-violation finding and the examiner took a dismissal motion under advisement.
Donna Gorhone, the appellant and a neighbor of 10450 Waterfowl Terrace in Columbia, appealed a March 10, 2026 Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) closeout letter that concluded there were no zoning violations after construction of an attached garage authorized by permit B25003489. Gorhone told the Howard County hearing examiner she filed a timely appeal after reviewing the administrative record and documents she said DPZ did not independently verify.
Gorhone said the permit approval chain depended on a single factual assertion: that an existing shed was attached to the dwelling. "The entire approval chain is built on unverified owner representation," she said, arguing the characterization originated with the property ownerand was adopted by DPZ without independent structural analysis. She asked the examiner to reverse the permit approval or remand the matter to DPZ for a fuller factual and zoning review, citing multiple grounds including documentary contradictions, demolition of prior structures, intensification of nonconformity, unanchored measurement methodology, and lack of a Newtown/Full Development Plan (FDP) compatibility analysis.
The appellant introduced historical photographs, boundary surveys and site images to show the shed was not attached and to highlight inconsistencies among survey copies. She pointed to an internal DPZ email (11/28/2023 from Jeff Goins, referenced in the record) and said later Accela workflow entries (September 2025) and the March 2026 closeout letter flowed from that unverified owner representation.
On behalf of DPZ, Everett James, the department's code enforcement supervisor, testified he reviewed the investigatory notes and issued the March 10 closeout letter concluding the complaint could not be verified. "There was no violation associated with the property," he said. Inspector Maurice Blanding, who conducted on-site inspections, testified he visited the property three times, reviewed survey materials and took field measurements using a rolling-tape device. Blanding said his photographs and measurements, including a measured roll shown in the record, supported the department's conclusion that a zoning violation was not established.
Appellant and county witnesses sharply disputed measurement practice and evidentiary foundation. Gorhone contended DPZ relied on a rolling tape and visual observation "with no visible property line markers, no benchmarks, no measured elevation data, or certified survey" and that the department's baseline for setback and ridge-height comparisons was therefore "unverified and unanchored." In cross-examination, Blanding acknowledged taking the roller-tape measurements on sloped, uneven ground but said the rolling tape is the department's field tool and that he took the measurements to the distances shown on the survey and later documented the images in the record.
County counsel moved to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional and timeliness grounds, arguing the building permit issuance itself was not timely appealed and therefore the hearing examiner lacked jurisdiction to decide matters arising from the permit. The hearing examiner took that motion under advisement and closed the evidentiary portion of the case; a written decision and order were promised to follow.
What happens next: the hearing examiner will issue a written decision addressing the appellant's factual claims and the county's jurisdictional motion. If the examiner finds DPZ erred, potential remedies could include remand for further review, modification requirements to bring the project into compliance, or other relief spelled out in the appeal request. If the examiner upholds the closeout letter or grants dismissal on timeliness grounds, the permit and DPZ's administrative findings would remain in effect pending further appeal rights specified in county rules.
Provenance: The article summarizes testimony and exhibits introduced at the hearing, including the appellant's opening (see appellant's list of grounds and reference to Goins email), the DPZ closeout letter (03/10/2026), sworn testimony of Everett James and Maurice Blanding about file review and measurements, and the hearing examiner's closing remarks taking the dismissal motion under advisement.
