Howard County Board of Appeals hears neighbor challenge to Maryland International School’s hilltop expansion

The Howard County Board of Appeals on Oct. 1 heard argument and testimony in BA‑823D, an appeal by neighbors challenging the Department of Planning and Zoning’s June 2026 approvals that would allow Maryland International School to remove one specimen tree and to disturb steep slopes for an expansion at 6135 Old Washington Road in Elkridge.

Vice Chair Lynn Fearcov opened the hearing and reviewed procedures, then appellants’ counsel Alex Votar told the board the appeal challenges both the steep‑slopes and specimen‑tree waivers as unsupported by the evidence and the law. “What we’re going to prove today is that this property is in no way unique,” Votar said during his opening, arguing that uniqueness and hardship criteria were not met and that the approvals were therefore arbitrary and capricious.

Neighbor David J. Mark, a witness for the appellants, testified that the combination of steep slopes, stream buffers and forest cover shown in appellants’ exhibits is common in the area and therefore not unique. “It’s going to be detrimental to my property values,” Mark said, explaining concerns about a proposed retaining wall and changes to vegetation and grading behind his house. Appellants also introduced county GIS layers and maps to support that other nearby properties share the same environmental features.

Counsel for the school, Christopher DeCarlo, countered that the Board recently considered the property and that prior proceedings found similar features to be unique; DeCarlo emphasized the heavy burden on appellants to prove the departments’ June decision was clearly erroneous. The parties disputed the relevance of an MAA/BWI airport zone reference in the application packet; the board marked airport material for identification while counsel argued about whether county practice or state regulations required an MAA approval letter at this stage.

Respondent Maryland International School then called its civil engineer, Robert (Bob) Vogel, who prepared the alternative compliance application. Vogel identified the specimen tree proposed for removal (labelled ST‑6 in the application) as located on a 2:1 slope adjacent to an existing parking area and stairs and described mitigation and design tradeoffs. He testified the total steep‑slope area on the property is about 44,443 square feet and that the application requests 15,535 square feet of disturbance, of which 8,730 square feet would be permanent. “The total steep slope disturbance in aggregate is 15,535 square feet,” Vogel stated, and he described plans for retaining walls, stormwater controls and forest‑conservation easements to reduce downstream effects.

Board members questioned both sides about what constitutes the legally relevant ‘‘uniqueness’’ standard, the effect of a prior Board decision that was vacated in part by the circuit court, and whether the appellant had met its evidentiary burden. After argument on a respondent motion to dismiss (taken under advisement), the board agreed to continue the hearing; the parties were told the case will resume Oct. 15 at 9:00 a.m.

The board approved routine meeting minutes at the start of the session. No final decision was reached on the appeal; testimony and evidence remain in the record for the continuation.