Developers say COVID and housing shortage warrant rezoning of two Maple Lawn parcels; residents raise density, schools and traffic concerns

The petitioners in a Howard County land-use hearing on July 15 asked the hearing examiner to reclassify roughly 2 acres along MD 216 and Maple Lawn Boulevard from B‑1 (commercial) to RR‑MxD‑3 (mixed‑use) so the parcels can be incorporated into the Maple Lawn preliminary development plan and developed with multifamily housing.

"The facts and circumstances that existed in 2016 no longer exist," said Mandy Bridal, petitioners' counsel, citing changes in the office market, housing demand and county planning policy. Kevin Foster, a professional land planner retained by the applicants, testified that the county's adoption of HOCO by Design and the documented housing shortage support the requested rezoning and that the parcels function today as part of the broader Maple Lawn neighborhood.

The petitioners offered multiple forms of evidence. Foster showed a neighborhood boundary exhibit and a current zoning map to demonstrate the subject parcels sit as small B‑1 islands surrounded by MXD‑3 zoning. Developer witnesses showed aerial and drone photos they said depict underutilized office parking. Developer Michael Book testified the change would enable an apartment project, and pledged that 15% of the proposed apartments would be moderately priced income housing units (MIHUs), saying, "I'll make it mandatory. Absolutely," and that the commitment will be memorialized in writing.

Economic testimony was fronted by Dr. Dorias Irani of Towson University, who told the examiner that the COVID‑19 pandemic produced a structural shift in demand for traditional suburban office space and that demand for housing has increased. "These changes were not reasonably foreseeable in 2016," Irani said, and he argued mixed‑use infill is more resilient than stand‑alone office development under current conditions.

Opponents and local residents pressed multiple concerns during cross‑examination and public questioning. Protestants asked whether public infrastructure or roadway improvements have changed since 2016 (Foster said none substantial have), disputed the geographic scope of the neighborhood used for the change analysis, and pressed how the rezoning and subsequent PDP amendment could affect traffic and school capacity.

Several residents asked about the scale of proposed housing. Counsel and witnesses confirmed the rezoning is step one; any specific apartment proposal would require a subsequent preliminary development‑plan amendment and later detailed plan review. Public commenters highlighted prior community opposition to denser housing proposals in the Maple Lawn area and requested fuller studies of traffic and school impacts. In response, DPZ witness Julia Sauer and petitioners said those operational impacts and adequacy analyses are performed at later plan stages, such as the comprehensive sketch‑plan and school adequacy review.

The Department of Planning and Zoning's technical staff report is in the record and was discussed by witnesses; planning testimony noted that the Planning Board unanimously recommended rezoning the parcels to RR‑MxD‑3. Petitioners argued this recommendation and the cumulative evidence satisfy Maryland's change doctrine. Protestants disputed whether the neighborhood delineation and the aggregate changes meet the legal standard.

The hearing examiner accepted the petitioners' record and indicated the rezoning case had rested; memoranda of law are to be filed and a decision will follow. The related preliminary development plan amendment was called and opened the same evening and was continued for additional testimony; the examiner scheduled continuation of the PDP hearing for July 23 at 5:30 p.m.

What's next: the zoning map amendment record is closed pending memoranda; the PDP amendment will resume on July 23 and will include additional technical testimony, including traffic analysis, and further opportunity for public comment.