Howard County hearing examiner takes public comment on Jagannath temple extension request; decision expected soon

Catherine Taylor, the Howard County hearing examiner, convened a July 10, 2024 work session to consider a request to extend a conditional‑use approval for a proposed Jagannath Organization for Global Awareness (temple) facility on Millers Mill Road. The petitioner’s counsel and several neighbors gave oral argument; Taylor said she would review the record and issue a decision in short order.

Christopher DeCarlo of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, representing the petitioner Naresh Das, summarized a decade‑long procedural history that began with a conditional‑use petition in 2015, a Board of Appeals decision in March 2020 and a federal consent order in July 2019. DeCarlo said the petitioner applied for a use‑and‑occupancy (U&O) permit on April 15, 2020 and that the county issued a U&O for the existing structure on June 8, 2023. DeCarlo said the temple had secured civil‑engineer proposals, retained a contractor and hired an architect, but that COVID‑era delays, increased construction costs and an extended appeals process prevented completion of the site development plan (SDP) within statutory timelines. He asked the examiner to reinstate a March 28, 2024 extension order and grant a three‑year extension to allow the SDP and construction to proceed.

Opponents led by nearby resident and developer Todd Arterburn challenged the procedural sufficiency of the petitioner’s notice and disputed whether the petitioner had diligently pursued the approved conditional‑use plan. Arterburn and neighbors argued the March 7, 2024 “dear neighbor” letter was a summary, not a certified copy of the extension request required by the county code, and that the petitioner had not completed several technical SDP prerequisites — including perk testing, wetlands and soils delineations, and stormwater design. Neighbors also complained that the petitioner had undertaken site work (tree clearing and a paved driveway) they described as premature and inconsistent with the required SDP process.

Public‑safety concerns were central to opposition testimony. Several residents, including former local police officer Michael Williams and neighbors who said they live opposite the temple property, said festivals in spring and summer have drawn large crowds and that visibility on the winding Millers Mill Road is limited by mature evergreen plantings and the current driveway location. Rachel Molineux, joining remotely, showed two photos and a short video of the roadway approach and said the trees have grown since the original hearings, creating worse sight distances. Neighbors raised questions about septic capacity, lack of commercial porta‑potties and trash service during large events.

Petitioner supporters, including congregant and local developer Barry Mehta and contractor Kurt Berry, disputed that the petitioner had been inactive. Mehta addressed the time needed to process SDPs and Berry said construction could be completed within about 12 months if funding and permits were in place. Several speakers argued the SDP and county review process — including DPZ technical review and county traffic requirements — are the proper venues to address sight‑distance and related traffic mitigation measures.

Counsel and witnesses on both sides repeatedly referenced the limited scope of the work session: Taylor said the proceeding was not a new conditional‑use hearing and that she would not reopen the merits of the 2020 decision. The central legal question for the extension analysis, as framed at the work session, was whether the petitioner had “diligently pursued” establishment of the approved use under Howard County zoning procedure for extensions (referenced in testimony as section 1‑310.13(c)).

Taylor declined to issue a decision that evening. She said she would review the record, re‑listen to the proceeding and issue a ruling soon. The matter remains under advisement; the examiner indicated that, if an extension were granted, she might consider requiring public‑safety conditions or milestones to ensure compliance with the Board of Appeals order and any SDP requirements.

The hearing record includes: the petitioner’s March 7, 2024 extension request and the examiner’s March 28, 2024 extension order (which had been stayed pending reconsideration), witness statements from petitioner representatives and neighbors, and photographic/video evidence shown by a resident of current roadside sight distances. The hearing examiner said any enforcement issues (e.g., use beyond permitted festivals) would be handled by the Department of Planning and Zoning separate from this extension determination.