Howard County Board of Appeals stays consolidated BA801D and BA802D pending circuit-court resolution

The Howard County Board of Appeals on Jan. 23, 2025, agreed to issue an order staying two consolidated appeals—BA801D and BA802D—until counsel notifies the board that related circuit-court litigation in the Kinkade matter has been resolved or settled.

Chair Gene Ryan opened the meeting and called for technical roll calls and routine approval of the Jan. 16 meeting minutes, which the board approved by roll call. The board then called both appeals at once and confirmed counsel on the record: Jessica Hare for appellant IMH Columbia LLC; Todd Brown for Howard Research and Development Corporation (HRD); and Sam (self-identified as Sam Hoffman) for Kinkade LLC.

Mr. Sanders, speaking for board staff, summarized the procedural posture: BA801D will be heard de novo under the board’s rules; BA802D is an appeal on the record. He incorporated the Howard County Code, Charter, zoning regulation, subdivision and land‑development regulations and the planning‑board record into the hearing record.

The meeting’s substantive question centered on whether the board should proceed or stay the consolidated matters given pending or concluded circuit-court litigation. Counsel for IMH, Jessica Hare, told the board that the circuit court issued a final judgment last April on the declaratory‑judgment count that concerned the parking issue and that the count addressing the subject of this appeal (count 4) was not appealed. "There was a final judgment ordered by the circuit court," Hare said, adding that she did not see a circumstance where the appellate issues would moot rulings by this board.

HRD’s counsel, Todd Brown, disputed the legal effect of that trial‑court decision on the board’s proceedings, emphasizing the distinction between private‑covenant interpretations decided by the circuit court and the zoning standards the Board of Appeals must apply. "Those are private covenants that are being interpreted by the court, not the zoning ordinance and not the zoning ordinance standards that are to be applied by the Board of Appeals in this case," Brown said.

Counsel for Kinkade (Sam) confirmed that a related civil trial was scheduled for March but cautioned that scheduling could change, and parties may pursue settlement or conference steps that affect timing. "It is scheduled for March now, but I'm not a 100% sure," he said, recommending that the parties notify the board of any changes.

Chair Ryan said he was concerned about efficiency and the risk that a later court development could undo board proceedings. To avoid repeated work and added expense, Ryan proposed staying the matters until the board receives notification that circuit‑court matters in the Kinkade case have reached a resolution that affects the Board’s docket.

Board members expressed agreement with a stay. Counsel discussed the precise wording and whether a stay should wait until the circuit decision was final through appeal; Todd Brown noted that an appeal could mean the circuit decision would not be final for some time. The chair instructed that the board would issue a stay pending notification from any party that the circuit‑court matter has been resolved or a settlement reached, at which point the board would reactivate the matters on the active docket and proceed with briefing and other steps.

The chair also announced an administrative pause on sending out any further orders or briefing schedules until the cases are reactivated. With no further business, the chair adjourned the meeting.

What the board did: The Board of Appeals consolidated the two matters on the record and agreed to stay BA801D and BA802D until attorneys notify the board of circuit‑court resolution or settlement in the related Kinkade litigation. The briefing schedule and other orders remain on hold until reactivation.

Next steps: The matters will be returned to the active docket when one of the attorneys notifies the Board that the related circuit‑court action has been resolved or settled.