Developer asks Howard County to rezone 11-acre Gateway parcel from B-2 to M-1

Howard Research and Development Corporation asked a Howard County hearing examiner on March 26 to recommend rezoning about 11.01 acres at 9121 South Commerce Center Drive in Columbia from B-2 (customer-facing retail) to M-1 (light industrial/warehouse).

Tom Cole, attorney for the petitioner, opened the hearing by saying the case was "about putting property to its highest and best use," arguing the parcel’s retail zoning stemmed from a 2003 era assumption about big-box retail that no longer applies. "Amazon has already sucked all of the wind out of retail," Cole told the examiner, urging the panel to treat the retention of B-2 in later map updates as a mistake of fact.

Two witnesses for the petitioner described the site and market history. Dan Sweeney, a planning and engineering consultant, said the parcel is "about 11 acres of a vacant grass lot" located behind former big-box retail and a movie theater and that aerial photos and long-term vacancy are "strong objective evidence" the zoning does not match the site's suitability. Sweeney testified he reviewed the petition, the technical staff report, planning board materials and the Gateway Master Plan and concluded M-1 zoning aligns with the master plan’s Sub Area 6 recommendation for light industrial employment uses.

Gabe Chung, identified as senior vice president for the property owner, said the owner’s leasing team has marketed the parcel for retail since at least 2008 with only "sporadic interest." He testified the site "lacks access, visibility, [and] traffic counts that’s necessary for retail to exist," and said industrial uses require less visibility and could better integrate with adjacent M-1 parcels. "M 1 clearly is a much better use for that site," Chung said.

Counsel for the county asked about access and whether a rezoning to M-1 would bring heavy truck traffic; witnesses described existing road access via Commerce Center Drive and a cul-de-sac and noted topography and a nearby movie-theater parcel affect possible vehicular connections to adjacent M-1 properties. Petitioners acknowledged there is no developer ready to build on the site today and said they are seeking rezoning to enable marketing and future industrial development.

Petitioners cited technical staff and planning board analysis supporting a finding that retaining B-2 in the 2014 comprehensive map was erroneous and that M-1 more closely matches the area’s planning guidance. There were references in testimony to case law standards for establishing a "mistake" in zoning, and petitioners offered aerial and zoning-overlay exhibits as evidence.

The hearing concluded without an immediate decision. The hearing examiner closed the record and ordered counsel to file memoranda of law by March 31 at 4 p.m.; the examiner said a report would then be prepared for the zoning hearing board. No vote or formal zoning change occurred at the March 26 proceeding.