Neighbor urges halt to Maryland International School expansion over tree removal, steep‑slope and outfall plans

David Joseph Mark, a neighbor and lifelong Elkridge resident, told the Howard County hearing examiner on June 16 that he fears the Maryland International School’s expansion will “wipe out a forested … slope” and leave him “looking at a 38‑foot retaining wall” that could devalue his property and send new runoff toward his yard. Mark and his counsel pressed county staff and the school’s engineer about whether the county’s approval correctly described the scope of disturbance to stream buffers, forest conservation areas and steep slopes.

The dispute centers on two alternative‑compliance approvals and a separate “necessary disturbance” authorization that allow the school to remove a single specimen tree (the application originally sought two removals), disturb contiguous steep slopes and extend a stormwater outfall toward a perennial stream. Project engineer Robert Vogel testified that the property’s configuration — including an historic school building, forest conservation areas and roughly 85 feet of vertical grade across the lot — creates a narrow development envelope that, in the applicant’s view, justifies the design choices. “We’re trying to keep everything as compacted toward the existing school,” Vogel said, describing a buried stormwater facility under a proposed athletic field and a retaining wall intended in part to preserve a forest buffer.

Neighbors and their expert witnesses disputed how the work was described in the application and in the county’s approval letter. The appellants’ exhibit materials show a small polygon labeled “stream disturbance: 20 linear feet” around the proposed rip‑rap outfall; neighbors say that label underplays the area of buffer and forest that will be disturbed when construction access, slope grading and erosion control are considered. “Even if you just stick to the most conservative interpretation … the applicant will be disturbing more than just 20 linear feet,” neighbor David Mark said in testimony.

Vogel said the outfall design was developed after back‑and‑forth review with the county and soil‑conservation staff and that the 20‑foot linear dimension refers to the width of the stream segment to be armored at the outfall. He and county reviewers sought an MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment) authorization for the stream work; Vogel testified the applicant pursued the additional outfall armoring and that doing so increases construction complexity and cost rather than reduces it. He also said the design team intends to limit the contractor’s work to the plan’s limits of disturbance (LOD) and that county reviewers requested cross‑section surveys and monitoring baselines to detect downstream change.

The hearing did not resolve the appeal; the examiner will issue a written decision. Neighbors asked the examiner to vacate or remand DPZ’s necessary‑disturbance approval, arguing the county did not evaluate required criteria such as whether less‑impact alternatives exist and whether mitigation and monitoring are adequate. Applicant counsel argued the record, the attached site exhibits and Vogel’s testimony supply the engineering justification the code requires and that the county reasonably conditioned approvals to minimize impacts. The hearing record will be used by the examiner in a forthcoming written order.