An evidentiary hearing before the Howard County hearing examiner focused on whether the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) properly followed a prior decision-and-order in its reinvestigation of activities at Manor Hill Brewing, 4411 Manor Lane in Ellicott City. Neighbors who live on Manor Lane testified that the propertys website and calendar show repeated public events they say fit the countys festival description and have caused safety and traffic problems; DPZs acting code-enforcement supervisor said his office reopened the complaint file, conducted multiple inspections and required the owner to reapply for some permits while the investigation remains open.

The hearing matters because the prior hearing examiner ordered DPZ to determine whether events at Manor Hill were agritourism-related and whether accessory uses and event spaces on the property remain incidental to farm operations. Neighbors told the examiner they believe DPZs May 28 response letter and site visits were incomplete and did not account for multiple festival-type events, the scale of parking and vehicle traffic on Manor Lane, or whether beer sold at the farm stand is produced with a primary ingredient grown on the site.

Neighbors testimony and evidence

Suzanne Hoffman, who lives about 0.7 miles from the brewery at 4815 Manor Lane, offered a site calendar screen shot as an exhibit and described a sequence of events she characterized as festival-like between February and May. "It's pretty obvious one could have looked at the calendar," Hoffman said, arguing DPZs May report did not evaluate multiple listed events. Joan Pontius, a Manor Lane resident at 4879 Manor Lane, described structures and outdoor areas she said visitors use during events and noted the property has been advertised for weddings and private rentals in county tourism materials. "They have 2 long lanes going toward the interior of the property," Pontius said when asked to describe how visitors move across the site.

Yavanda Brooks, 4819 Manor Lane, described pedestrian safety concerns along the largely shoulderless Manor Lane and said she would not feel safe walking the road during the busiest events. "Theres not always a place, and I've been caught in a situation where I was in a panic because traffic was coming both ways at the same time," Brooks said.

Petitioners offered multiple calendar screenshots and screenshots of event advertisements as exhibits; petitioners counsel asked the hearing examiner to count events that petitioners say meet the hearing examiners festival criteria. Petitioners further highlighted testimony from earlier hearings (incorporated into the record) in which an applicant representative acknowledged certain events (for example, "Books and Beers in the Barn," craft fairs and a "Crafts Fair & Maker's Market") that a prior hearing examiner found could meet the elements of a festival.

DPZs reinvestigation and inspector testimony

Steve Rolls, who identified himself as acting code enforcement supervisor for DPZ, testified that after receiving the hearing examiners February decision-and-order he "found the order so expansive that I decided to do a ground up investigation" and that he conducted a series of site inspections in May and later months. Rolls said DPZ reopened the complaint under a new case number (CE2526), inspected the property on multiple dates, and has not closed the investigative file. He told the examiner the department asked the property owner to reapply for a farm-stand permit and to amend the farm-brewery permit; Rolls said the farm-stand permit was reissued after the owner amended the plan to reflect how the stand operates and that the brewery permit was amended to remove public visitors from the brewery area.

Rolls said his May 10 site visit included an inspection while a May event was occurring and that on that visit he observed brewery operations, a silo and a feed tube that led from a nearby cornfield into the brewery area. Rolls testified he observed beer being sold at the farm stand and that he "did not find anything inconsistent with the belief that they were using corn as a primary ingredient on the property," but also acknowledged he did not trace every ingredient to confirm a primary-ingredient finding for each beer label sold.

What petitioners say DPZ did not do

Petitioners and their witnesses argued DPZs May 28 letter considered only the May 10 craft fair/makers market event and did not evaluate numerous other events shown on the owners calendar between February and the May letter. Petitioners asked why DPZ did not analyze events that the hearing examiners prior order had required DPZ to review and why DPZ had not determined whether beer sold at the farm stand used a primary ingredient grown on the site. Hoffman summarized the neighbors complaint point at one point: "I don't really understand what kind of evaluation DPZ did if they can't even look at a calendar."

DPZs position and status of enforcement

DPZ counsel told the hearing examiner the department welcomes clear, specific directives but emphasized the agency has reopened the file, performed inspections, required permit amendments and continues to investigate. Counsel noted DPZ did not issue an immediate notice-of-violation because Rolls said department staff needed to assemble complete evidence to support any enforcement notice; Rolls testified the department typically relies on direct inspections and contemporaneous observations to support formal violations.

Hearing-examiner instructions and next steps

The hearing examiner closed oral argument by asking counsel for legal memoranda on the scope of the hearing examiners authority to order DPZ actions (for example, whether the examiner may order DPZ to issue a formal notice of violation), and set a briefing deadline for both sides. The examiner left the record open for receipt of those briefs and said she would issue a decision after review. "The record will remain open until the October 31 upon receipt of the memorandum of law," the hearing examiner stated on the record.

Why it matters and what to watch next

The case centers on how Howard Countys land-use rules apply where agritourism, a farm stand, and an on-site brewery overlap on a single rural property; the outcome could clarify what sorts of events qualify as agritourism festivals, how DPZ must evaluate farm-stand "value added" product rules (including whether on-site corn must be a primary ingredient in beer sold on site), and how DPZ must treat accessory event space that may exceed accessory-structure size limits in the RC district. The hearing examiner requested legal briefs and will rule after reviewing the parties memoranda; the record remained open until October 31 for those filings.