Applicants appeal denials to remove specimen trees and grade stream buffer for Ellicott City subdivision

Ajila Sundaram and Mukesh Kumar asked a Howard County hearing examiner on July 31 to overturn county planning denials that block a two‑lot subdivision at 3956 Old Columbia Pike in Ellicott City, including requests to remove three specimen trees and to allow grading within a 75‑foot stream buffer.

The applicants’ engineering witness, Sameer Alomar, testified under oath that the 1‑acre parcel is triangular and narrows to about 55 feet at the rear, slopes to a stream and sits inside the Tiber Watershed. He said those physical constraints and county stormwater rules require a larger stormwater pond — sized to treat the 10‑year storm, the 100‑year storm and a 6.6‑inch (3.5‑hour) event — and that the pond footprint and a required use‑in‑common driveway/easement leave no practical siting alternative that would spare the three specimen trees.

"There is absolutely no way," Alomar said when asked whether the plan could be rearranged to avoid removing the trees; he added the only alternative would be to forgo the subdivision. Alomar also testified that forest‑conservation practice treats disturbance of more than 30 percent of a tree’s root zone as likely fatal and estimated the proposed grading and easement work would disturb roughly 60–70 percent of the root zone of at least one tree the applicants seek to remove. He told the examiner that one tree (identified in the record as a silver maple) appears to be in "very poor condition," while another is in fair or good condition.

Alomar cited county subdivision requirements (verbal reference to section 16‑1‑19(a)(8) in the hearing) that prohibit creating or perpetuating a landlocked parcel, saying the rules require the subdivision to provide a use‑in‑common easement and public water access for a landlocked parcel in the rear. He told the examiner that the driveway alignment, stormwater‑management requirements driven by the watershed, and the need to provide utilities to the rear parcel combine to limit where the driveway and pond can be placed.

Nearby residents pressed the applicants and their engineer on alternatives and safety. Mark Ragoneese, who gave his address as 3947 Old Columbia Pike, asked why the existing driveway that currently leads to the rear house could not be widened instead of constructing a new shared driveway. His wife, Erica Ragonese, said the community had not seen full plans and expressed concern about the proposed 8–10‑foot embankment for the new driveway and where runoff will go. "I'm not so sure how safe that new embankment is going to be," Erica Ragonese said.

Alomar responded that a recent boundary survey shows the driveway that now serves the house in the rear largely lies on an adjoining parcel (identified in the hearing as Parcel 565), not on the applicants’ property, and that because the existing drive is not on the applicants’ land it cannot be relied on to meet the statutory obligation to provide legal access for development of the landlocked parcel (identified as Parcel 235). He acknowledged that, physically, an existing driveway might be extended in a tight location but said doing so would likely create other engineering and planning problems, including proximity to the existing house and difficulties routing runoff and siting the pond.

No rebuttal witnesses were offered. The hearing examiner closed the evidentiary record for both BA 818d (tree removal/alternative‑compliance) and BA 819d (grading in the 75‑foot stream buffer) and said a written decision and order will follow. Counsel agreed to provide an overlay exhibit to be added to the record the next morning.

Why it matters: The case illustrates the tension between landowners’ subdivision rights on constrained lots, county stream‑buffer and stormwater standards designed to reduce downstream flooding, and neighbors’ safety and runoff concerns. The hearing record will form the basis for the examiner’s forthcoming written decision, which will resolve whether the legal and engineering justifications presented outweigh DPZ’s denial of alternative compliance and buffer grading.