Donald James Wiggins Jr., the applicant and property owner in Ellicott City, told a Howard County zoning hearing that he is seeking a variance to add a 400-square-foot shed behind his detached garage.

Wiggins said the application seeks to increase the maximum lot coverage for accessory structures from 600 square feet to 1,000 square feet. He described the request as “an increase of 400 square feet,” or about a 66% increase from the 600-square-foot maximum.

The hearing officer, whose name was not stated on the record, reviewed the variance criteria with Wiggins and heard testimony. The hearing officer later said, “the hearing has been held and a decision and order will be forthcoming.”

Why it matters: Wiggins told the hearing that his lot is larger than most in the neighborhood — “over an acre” versus the typical half-acre nearby — and that his detached garage is already full of equipment. “This application is for a shed in my yard,” Wiggins said. He told the panel the garage is 576 square feet and currently “fits zero cars inside of it,” and that moving bicycles, lawnmowers, snow blowers, strollers and gardening supplies into a shed would allow the family to park vehicles inside the garage as intended.

Wiggins described the requested shed as located directly behind the detached garage and not visible from the road. He said he bought the property in 2017 and that the detached garage predated his ownership: “In 2017, I believe,” he testified when asked when he purchased the house. Wiggins also said the small additional coverage “is less than 1% of the lot coverage I’m asking for for this shed,” and argued the large lot and existing detached garage create a unique circumstance under the local variance criteria.

The hearing officer prompted Wiggins through the standard variance findings, asking whether the property’s physical characteristics — irregular shape, length and narrowness — created practical difficulties in complying with the bulk provisions of the zoning regulations. Wiggins responded that his lot is not a simple rectangle but more like “an extended pentagon,” and that because neighboring lots commonly have accessory sheds, granting a variance would not change neighborhood character. The applicant provided a site plan that the hearing officer noted was received by staff on Jan. 8, 2025.

No final decision was issued at the hearing. The hearing officer closed the record and said a written decision and order would follow.

Votes at a glance: No vote or final disposition was recorded at the hearing. The hearing officer closed testimony and indicated a decision would be issued later.