Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Complete Streets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Howard County approves design‑manual waiver on Old Washington Road; neighbors object to scope and consistency of documents
Summary
The county granted a design‑manual waiver tied to the Maryland International School project that conditions shared‑use path and curb/striping changes along Old Washington Road. Neighbors say the application and approval cited inconsistent street classifications and insufficient justification; county engineers said the waiver process gave DPZ discretion to define the correct street type and required design changes.
Howard County’s development engineering staff granted a design‑manual waiver tied to the Maryland International School site plan after a contested hearing on June 16. The waiver approval letter references the county’s Complete Streets guidance (a summary table of Howard County street types) and conditions the approval on installation of a shared‑use path, curb adjustments and revised striping along Old Washington Road.
Neighbor David Mark said the applicant’s submission was internally inconsistent about which street‑type standard it sought to waive: the application letter referenced one design table while the attached exhibit showed a different table. “I don’t think Old Washington Road is a Town Center Connector or a Neighborhood Street 2,” Mark said; he produced recent photographs showing a two‑lane road without public parallel parking and argued the exhibit does not match field conditions.
The project engineer, Robert Vogel, acknowledged the initial table reference was incorrect in a transmittal but said the Development Engineering Division and Department of Public Works jointly determined the best fit for the road type during review. Vogel said the county requested a waiver application so DPZ and DPW could specify how they wanted the curb, striping and a shared‑use path configured; he described the waiver process as a practical engineering conversation, not a zoning variance review. “They wanted this shared‑use path,” Vogel said, describing the county’s approach to locating the path primarily within the public right‑of‑way or dedicated easements and asking for LOD and striping changes to preserve emergency access.
Appellants asked the hearing examiner to remand the waiver because, they argued, the county failed to apply the waiver/alternative‑compliance criteria in the subdivision code (section 16.104) and did not include lifecycle‑cost or maintenance justification the design manual requires. Applicant counsel responded that county practice and the design manual (adopted by Council resolution) authorize DPZ to process these engineering waivers, and that the waiver letter and attached table gave adequate guidance to contractors and reviewers.
The examiner closed the record on the waiver hearing; written findings will follow. Opponents signaled they may press that the county must apply the subdivision waiver/alternative‑compliance standard for certain types of departures; proponents emphasized that the development engineering review focused on road safety, feasibility and required practical modifications rather than the zoning standards used for alternative‑compliance requests.
