David Harrison appeals Howard County denial of variance for 248‑square‑foot pole barn

A petitioner in Howard County asked an examiner to overturn a Department of Planning and Zoning designee's decision that a pole barn on his property exceeded the allowable accessory‑building square footage.

At a virtual de novo hearing, David Harrison testified that the 2021 pole barn was built to support his children's 4‑H livestock activities and to store hay and farm equipment. Harrison said the parcel is 5.808 acres and that the barn exceeds the 2,200‑square‑foot allowance by 248 square feet. "We were using someone else's facility... and we wanted to bring them onto our own property," Harrison said, describing the original intent for calves, goats and pigs. He said the family stores tractors, a hay wagon and hay inside the building and that about 3 acres of his land (plus work on a neighbor's 3 acres) are used to produce hay.

Harrison and his wife, co‑petitioner Carmen Castilla, told the hearing the family paused 4‑H activity after Harrison's cancer diagnosis during construction and later used the barn to support hay operations and equipment storage. Castilla argued removing or shrinking the structure would be impractical and wasteful. "The cost of removing 248 square feet of the building... would actually have to remove more of that. And cost effectiveness, that would just be, a complete waste of money and waste of resources," she said.

Petitioner's counsel framed the request as either an allowable variance under the applicable statutory standard (referred to in argument as "section 130b2a") or as an issue in which the property should be treated as agricultural. Counsel quantified the scale of the request: the 248‑square‑foot overage represents roughly 11.3% relative to the structure's allowed size and is a vanishing share of the lot's total area (petitioners cited 252,648 square feet for the parcel).

Hearing examiner Catherine Taylor questioned whether a phone conversation with county staff could substitute for the formal permitting process and reminded parties that the hardship analysis focuses on whether the petitioner can conform to zoning going forward rather than on the cost to alter already‑built noncompliance. Taylor asked for specifics on current agricultural operations and noted public records do not show an agricultural tax exemption on the property. Taylor also confirmed the proceeding is de novo and that her decision will be independent of the prior designee's finding.

Taylor closed the hearing record and said she will issue a written order typically within 30 days of the hearing date. The examiner gave no interim indication of how she would rule.