The Howard County Board of Appeals on May 1, 2025, agreed on a set of editorial and formatting changes to its rules of procedure and instructed staff to prepare the document for prefiling with the County Council.

The changes are stylistic and clarifying rather than substantive, the board said, and include standardized references to the board, updating references to the board’s legal adviser, punctuation and capitalization fixes, renumbering of subparts, and instructions to place supporting forms and filing codes online rather than in a printed appendix.

Why it matters: The rules spell out how the board schedules hearings, handles evidence and filings, and manages recusals and alternates. Even stylistic changes affect clarity for petitioners, opponents and staff, and the county council will review the board’s proposed rules before they take effect.

At the start of the session, Chair Gene Ryan called the meeting and the board moved into a work session focused on the rules after briefly handling administrative items. Board members and the board’s legal adviser reviewed the document line by line and agreed on a set of edits intended to harmonize terminology, remove references to an appendix, and clarify procedural phrasing.

Key agreed edits and clarifications

- Reference wording: The board agreed to treat “Board of Appeals” as the formal name and to default to the shortened term “the board” elsewhere in the document for clarity. Instances of the abbreviation “BOA” were to be replaced with “the board” where appropriate.

- Legal-adviser language: Where the rules previously said “county solicitor,” the board agreed to replace that phrasing with “board’s legal adviser” in most locations to allow flexibility in who provides legal support. The board retained a specific reference to the County Solicitor in one place where the office’s legal sufficiency review is required before publication.

- Hearing examiner language: Board members discussed whether to prefix references to a “hearing examiner” with “Board of Appeals” to distinguish this role from other county hearing examiners. After reviewing the existing definition in the rules, the board opted not to change the definition but confirmed the intent that the rules apply to the examiner who handles Board of Appeals matters.

- Alternate members and absences: The board clarified language about calling an alternate member to participate. The rules will continue to require alternates to “participate” (a defined term in the document that includes reviewing exhibits and asking questions) rather than simply being “called up,” and the board emphasized the expectation that members provide advance notice of absences so scheduling can be accommodated.

- Style and formatting fixes: The board approved numerous punctuation and capitalization fixes (for example, capitalizing “Presiding” where used as an official title), small wording changes (for example, changing “tell the board” to “present the board with an oral summary”), and renumbering of nested lists so order-of-presentation items are numbered sequentially rather than indented lettered sub-points.

- Electronic filings and appendices: The board voted to remove references to an appendix and to move supplemental materials — including approved filing codes and example forms — to an online location (the Board of Appeals website). The board also approved a clarification for the handling of empty electronic submissions: an electronic submission received without any attachment will be rejected and the administrator will enter a “no document included” notation in the online record.

- Motions and terminology: The board asked staff to change the term “procedural review” to “reconsideration” in the motions section where applicable and to make other phrasing consistent through the document.

- Collateral materials: Board members agreed not to draft new application guides, user guides or other collateral materials until the County Council acts on the rules; the intent is to avoid preparing materials that might need revision if the council changes the text.

Process, next steps and scheduling

Board members said the changes discussed at the May 1 work session are intended as stylistic only and do not reopen substantive policy decisions. The board asked staff to prepare the finalized text for prefiling with the County Council. A preliminary schedule shared by staff listed May 22 as a potential prefile date, introduction on June 7, a council public hearing on June 16, and a possible council vote as early as July 7, though the council is not bound to that timeline.

The board also discussed expectations for member attendance once rules are enacted, including the chair’s discretion on excused absences and an expectation that members provide advance notice to facilitate scheduling.

The board did not take a new formal substantive vote to change policy during the session; members framed the meeting as a line-by-line editorial review to prepare the rules for council consideration.

Ending

The board closed the work session after completing the line-by-line review and directed staff to prepare the finalized, styled document and supporting online materials for submission to the County Council.