Howard County Zoning Board approves rezoning for two Dorsey Road parcels after hearing examiner finds 2013 mistake

The Howard County Zoning Board voted April 8 to approve ZB1131M, a map amendment filed by Palmetto Group Inc. to rezone two adjacent parcels at 6871 and 6875 Dorsey Road from Transit Oriented Development (TOD) to a residential cluster zone (RSC), after the board found the hearing examiner’s report provided a sufficient record.

Hearing examiner Miss Nichols told the board the two privately owned parcels total roughly 0.4 acres (about 0.2 acres and 0.199 acres). She said the lots had been placed in the TOD zoning during the 2013 comprehensive rezoning, but that a realignment of Dorsey Road and environmental constraints — “streams, wetlands, a stormwater management pond, and a stormwater easement” — left the lots unable to access the TOD area. “If you find mistake, then you have to figure out what the corrective zoning should be,” Miss Nichols said, explaining why she recommended a residential cluster zone that would permit single‑family detached homes on 6,000‑square‑foot lots rather than the larger R‑12 lots that existed before 2013.

Protestant Joel Hurwitz, who filed exceptions to the examiner’s report, used his allotted oral argument time to press procedural and charter-based concerns about the appointment and authority of the zoning board’s hearing examiner and related counsel. Hurwitz argued the county charter and code raised questions about whether certain advisory and legal functions had been appointed or authorized in public as required. He told the board he did not expect the zoning merits to be overturned on that basis at this meeting but said he wanted the procedural questions formally on record.

Board members acknowledged Hurwitz raised “legitimate points” about appointments and the desirability of resolving them for future proceedings, but several said they would not use those procedural questions to block action on the zoning petition. One member said, “I’m not gonna vote for this case to go away tonight,” while another said the board should address rules-of-procedure issues later.

The board discussed notice timing and public access earlier in the meeting. Members reviewed the rules requiring public posting and newspaper advertising tied to the administrative meeting, which the board’s rules frame as a 30‑day posting window; some members said prior practice had felt like a 60‑day notice for substantial hearings and urged the board to consider building in minimum time periods and more evening hearings so residents could participate.

After discussion the board moved to act on the petition. A motion to vote in favor of the Palmetto Group Inc. petition (ZB1131M) was made, seconded and passed. Chair Youngman, Vice Chair Walsh, Miss Rigby and Miss Young voted yes; Dr. Jones was absent. The chair said a written decision will be forthcoming.

The hearing examiner’s report, which the board reviewed and relied upon, said the two parcels cannot practicably be redeveloped as TOD without building across wetlands or constructing bridges and that allowing them to return to a residential cluster designation would align their use with neighboring single‑family properties. The board’s approval, by adopting the examiner’s findings and conclusions, directs staff to issue a written order reflecting that decision.

The board also signaled it expects to revisit procedural items — including the exceptions timeline (currently 20 business days), notice/advertising practices and whether more hearings should be scheduled in evenings — and indicated a possible rule revision effort for the fall or when the next council is seated.

A written order and final decision were not released at the meeting; the chair said the board will provide a written decision in due course.