Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Case Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders 10‑page briefs and moves to consolidate Downtown Columbia development appeals
Summary
After dismissing the jurisdictional motion in BA795D, the Howard County Board of Appeals directed parties in related SDP and appeal cases to file single‑spaced, 10‑page memoranda on points of law and preliminary issues (30‑day target), and instructed parties to seek a joint motion to consolidate multiple related appeals with a tentative on‑the‑record hearing in March.
Following the board's procedural rulings, members spent a substantial portion of the meeting managing the calendar for several interconnected Downtown Columbia appeals (cases including BA799D, BA800D, BA801, and related on‑the‑record appeals).
Chair Gene Ryan said the board wanted a concise briefing exercise to help members ‘‘lock [their] head around’’ the legal issues before a full hearing. The board directed parties to prepare memoranda limited to 10 single‑spaced pages containing points of law, pertinent published opinions, prior Board findings and a summary of preliminary legal issues and standards of evaluation. The chair proposed a 30‑day target for filings, with parties allowed to ask for additional time.
Parties and counsel agreed it would be administratively efficient to consolidate related appeals where appropriate — combining on‑the‑record appeals together and de novo site development plan hearings together — and to file a joint motion for consolidation. The board said it would open the cases next week for a short procedural virtual session to satisfy Open Public Meetings Act advertising requirements and to accept any stipulations or joint orders the parties submit.
The board discussed sequencing: hearing on‑the‑record appeals first (a March timeframe was suggested), followed by the consolidated de novo hearings at a later date to allow time for evidence and scheduling. The board also noted that counsel may need to file narrow amended memoranda where subsequent appellate decisions bear on the record appeals; a party requested 10 days to file an amended memorandum and the board agreed to allow routine motion practice to address such requests.
The board emphasized formatting limits (single‑spaced, 10 pages total) and said the Office of Law would circulate a written order with exact deadlines and the specific criteria the memoranda should address. Counsel signaled general agreement to the plan, and the board closed the session and set a short recess to proceed to its next calendar items.
