Howard County Board of Appeals to decide whether Arrington Manor subdivision can keep forested buffers after DPZ denial

The Howard County Board of Appeals on April 16 heard an appeal (BA 827D) from the owner of a proposed four‑lot Arrington Manor subdivision in Elkridge seeking to reverse the Department of Planning and Zoning’s denial of an alternative compliance request to allow forest conservation easements on lots smaller than 10 acres.

Appellant witnesses told the board that the 2.14‑acre site on Lawyers Hill Road contains hydric soils, a floodplain and other environmental buffers along the eastern and northeastern boundaries, and that the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) incorrectly characterized some of those features as off‑site. "We have environmental features on our property," engineer Frank Manalanssen testified, arguing the revised plan preserves trees along the I‑95 noise wall while leaving a 25‑foot unencumbered area immediately behind the homes.

Why it matters: The appellants said denying on‑site forest conservation forces expensive off‑site mitigation — including buying credits from a forest conservation bank — that can drastically raise development costs and affect housing affordability. Manalanssen told the board that the site’s usable on‑site forest credit amounts to about 0.3 acres of the total obligation, and that buying off‑site credits outside the watershed could triple that requirement; he estimated some bank transactions had been in the range of $150,000. Owner Timothy Harmon said the regulatory and mitigation costs had added roughly $50,000 per lot and that a separate affordable‑housing fee adds tens of thousands more.

DPZ’s stated reasons for denying the waiver, cited in the record, include concern that the proposed forest conservation on small lots would significantly limit a "reasonable portion" of the rear yard available for future owners and an enforcement risk of homeowners violating easements. Appellants proposed mitigation — a marked split‑rail fence, easement signage and HOA maintenance — to reduce the risk of encroachment; DPZ staff was not present at the hearing to respond in person.

The record shows a long administrative history: the alternate compliance and accompanying F‑plan were first submitted in 2020, the case underwent multiple review cycles and county rule changes (including Complete Streets road‑classification updates), and DPZ issued denials in 2022 and a written denial dated August 28, 2025. Manalanssen said some forest bank credits that had been negotiated were no longer available by July 2024, which contributed to the appellant’s claim of increased cost and delay.

The appellant introduced a set of exhibits for identification including GIS screenshots, illustrative renderings of the subdivision with and without on‑site forest conservation, and a proposed split‑rail fence and signage detail. Counsel argued to the board that allowing forest conservation in a marked easement would preserve trees, match what nearby developments have been allowed to do, and impose no special privilege because the applicant still faces off‑site mitigation or fees for remaining obligations.

Board action and next steps: The Board did not decide the appeal at the hearing. Chair Gene Ryan closed the record and the Board voted to take the case under advisement; the panel scheduled deliberation and decision for April 23, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. No formal vote on the waiver was taken on April 16.

Questions to follow: The board’s forthcoming decision will turn on whether it finds DPZ’s denial arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law and whether the appellants’ proposed on‑site protections and partial on‑site credit satisfy the county’s forest conservation requirements. If the board overturns DPZ, the order would allow forest conservation easements on the four lots as proposed; if it affirms DPZ, the appellant will need to meet the remaining obligation by off‑site banking or fees as required by county rules.