Council hears Normandy proposal to allow indoor self‑storage in B2; members press design and activity‑center protections

At a Howard County Council work session petitioners and county planning staff presented Council Bill 59, 2024, a zoning regulation amendment (ZRA) that would allow indoor self‑storage in the B2 (Business General) district as a conditional use if developers meet specific criteria.

"The use would have to be located on a lot or parcel that is a minimum of five acres in size…[and] individual self storage units will need to be located entirely within a building structure," Bill Erskine, land‑use counsel for Normandy Venture Limited Partnership, told the council as he outlined the draft criteria. The applicant proposes limiting eligible parcels to those inside the county’s planned water and sewer service area, prohibiting outdoor storage and requiring direct access to a collector or higher road.

Petitioners and DPZ said the goal is to give residents and nearby small businesses closer, lower‑cost storage options and to reserve M1/M2 industrial land for industry. Normandy representatives described a conceptual plan that would place retail fronting Route 40 with the enclosed storage building behind it to act as a buffer between commercial and adjacent residential areas.

DPZ deputy director Jessica Bella told the council the department’s technical review must evaluate the proposal against HOCO by Design (the county’s adopted general plan) and the future land‑use character appendix. That appendix contains the narrative descriptions (building heights, setbacks, sidewalks, boulevard/landscape treatments and other public‑realm elements) the hearing authority should use when assessing a conditional‑use application. DPZ recommended specific site‑design criteria be added so that an indoor storage proposal in a mapped activity center provides the walkable, mixed‑use features the plan envisions.

Councilmembers pressed several concerns: that the ZRA could apply to roughly 30 B2 parcels countywide (about 11 of which DPZ mapped inside activity centers), that some sites might deliver minimal pedestrian activation and create 'dead' frontages, and that conversion of such parcels for storage could preclude intended mixed‑use housing or retail in activity centers unless design controls are strong. Several members asked whether the petitioner would accept stronger site‑design commitments — retail adjacent to or integrated with the storage, a mandated pedestrian boulevard, or other tangible measures to ensure compatibility with the envisioned activity‑center character.

Bill Erskine and Normandy representatives said they were open to design requirements and noted the Planning Board recommended a criterion directing the hearing authority to evaluate whether the proposed building form and site design contribute to a cohesive, walkable place.

The council also reviewed the applicant’s public‑ethics disclosures. Erskine said the petition included a detailed Exhibit A listing dozens of related special‑purpose entities and that the applicant had interpreted the disclosure rules broadly to capture potential relationships; councilmembers asked the petitioner to double‑check completeness and clarity.

Next steps: DPZ and the petitioner proposed that if the council advances the ZRA, the hearing examiner would apply the specific criteria and the future land‑use appendix in site‑level review. The session produced no final vote on CB 59; councilmembers directed staff and the petitioner to draft clearer site‑design criteria that would protect activity‑center goals where applicable.