Trinity Homes asks Howard County hearing examiner for forest-conservation waiver, citing road and stormwater burdens

Howard County hearing examiner Catherine Taylor heard testimony July 24 on an appeal by Trinity Homes Maryland seeking a waiver from the county’s forest-conservation rules for a proposed nine-lot subdivision on a 3.1-acre parcel.

Tom Cole, representing Trinity Homes, told the examiner the subdivision is a by-right nine-unit proposal but the Department of Planning and Zoning denied a forest-conservation alternative-compliance request. "Petitioner is seeking a by right 9 unit subdivision of the property," Cole said in opening remarks, and he said the appeal concerns a waiver from forest-conservation requirements rather than the right to build the homes.

Robert Vogel, a professional engineer called by the petitioner, testified the company proposes to provide 0.18 acres of forest on-site (which the county’s rules classify as non‑credited because it is below the roughly 10,000-square-foot/0.23-acre credited threshold) and mitigate the remaining obligation off-site. Vogel said the total on-site obligation in the watershed is about 0.5 acres and that the petitioner’s proposed off-site mitigation would amount to an equal or greater area in the watershed. "We are not able to accomplish that so the proposal here is to take the 0.5 acres in total, mitigate that in the watershed…somewhere else in the watershed, 1 acres would be provided," Vogel testified.

Vogel outlined several physical constraints he said make providing a credited half-acre on-site infeasible: steep topography (about a 30-foot vertical grade across the parcel), narrow lot geometry, required right-of-way dedication for Upton Road (about 0.27 acres) and St. John's Lane, and an expanded stormwater-management pond and buffer that consume open space. He estimated those dedications and required open space together account for roughly 40% of the site. "So we have if you deduct the right of way…and the open space…that accounts for 40% of the gross area of the site," Vogel said.

Vogel also described how stormwater requirements and dam‑safety rules affect where trees may be planted: the pond design and Maryland code provisions he cited limit planting near the perimeter of stormwater ponds, which reduces the locations available for on-site forest conservation. He said the project’s overall stormwater design adds water-quality treatment (a sand filter, detention and lot-level infiltration) and would reduce runoff compared with current conditions on the unimproved site.

Cole and Vogel argued the combination of road-improvement obligations (including widening Upton Road and required improvements along St. John's Lane), stormwater facilities for public roads, utility relocations and the changed forest-conservation rules since the project’s original sketch approval created an unusual hardship that justifies the waiver. Cole asked the examiner to consider a prior hearing-examiner decision on the same parcel and said that decision recognized the parcel’s uniqueness.

Residents who spoke at the public portion of the hearing focused on traffic and neighborhood impacts. Rachel Miller of Michaels Way asked how traffic onto Route 40 would be handled and said widening St. John's Lane risks turning a neighborhood road into a commercial corridor: "You keep talking about the watershed, but the biggest problem is the traffic and Saint John's Lane," she said. Kathleen Kraft of 3216 Saint John's Lane told the examiner she opposed more development along the street and said heavy trucks and more traffic have already degraded quality of life.

The hearing examiner noted traffic impacts are not a criterion for deciding a forest-conservation waiver on a by-right subdivision and allowed residents to voice concerns even where the matters fall outside the waiver criteria. No party requested additional testimony or evidence at the hearing’s close.

Cole closed by reiterating the petitioner’s core claim: strict imposition of on-site forest requirements combined with road and stormwater obligations would make development infeasible and that the petitioner’s proposed mix—0.18 acres on-site plus off-site mitigation and upgraded stormwater controls—would better satisfy the regulation’s intent to protect water quality while recognizing site constraints.

Hearing Examiner Catherine Taylor closed the record and said she would issue a written decision within the required period. The hearing record includes the appellant’s site plans and a prior decision in order referenced by the petitioner; the Department of Planning and Zoning’s denial letter and a July 9 email from DPC were noted and will be placed in the file for the examiner’s review.