Dale N. Schumacher, MD, Director
Belmont Woods Road Conservation Organization, LLC
6581 Belmont Woods Road
Elkridge, Maryland 21075-5202

Re: Invoice

Dear Dr. Schumacher:

Dr. Mary Ellen Duncan provided to me the memorandum and invoice that you sent to her dated October 14, 2006, for response.

Your memorandum makes certain erroneous assumptions that really do need to be addressed, especially since these assertions continue to be issues between you and the Howard Community College or the Howard Community College Educational Foundation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “HCC/HCCEF”). I apologize in advance for the length of this response, but it is important to clarify these issues now so that as we work with the public in an open and cooperative manner, the mischaracterization of these issues will not be used to further mislead or confuse the positions of HCC/HCCEF that are relevant to Belmont. These issues are as follows:

1. HCC/HCCEF is NOT obligated to apply for a Limited Social Assemblies conditional use under the zoning laws. On October 31, 2003, you and Barbara Parker entered into an agreement with the American Chemical Society (“ACS”) that addressed the use of Belmont Woods Road (hereinafter the “Agreement”). The Agreement provides that:

“Belmont [HCC/HCCEF] agrees that if it seeks to utilize the accessory use of Limited Social Assemblies, any petition to the Board of Appeals for Howard County and Hearing Examiner shall include the following limitations [setting forth a variety of conditions for Limited Social Assemblies.]”

After the execution of the Agreement, ACS did not apply for or otherwise petition Howard County to utilize the Limited Social Assemblies conditional use, even though ACS remained in possession of and operated Belmont for over one year after the signing of the Agreement. Importantly, to the best of my knowledge, this failure to apply for the conditional use was not raised by you with ACS or with the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to the sale of Belmont on November 19, 2004.

As an aside, it should be noted that you caused the Agreement to be recorded in the Land Records of Howard County over one year after the Agreement was signed, on November 18, 2004. Indeed, without letting anyone know (ACS or HCC/HCCEF) that you were doing so, the Agreement was recorded just one day prior to settlement between ACS and HCC/HCCEF, which was on November 19, 2004.

As you are well aware, it has been HCC/HCCEF’s position that because Belmont is now owned or operated by a unit of government, there is no reason now to apply for the conditional use under Limited Social Assemblies. This position is strongly supported in the law, and nothing has changed for HCC/HCCEF to consider making that application now.

Last year, some of the neighbors along Belmont Woods Road asked the Department of Planning and Zoning to issue a zoning violation based on HCC/HCCEF’s failure to apply for the conditional use. This request was denied by the Department of Planning and Zoning. The neighbors appealed this decision. Prior to the hearing that was scheduled on the appeal in March of this year, those neighbors, through their counsel and Herman Charity’s intervention, obtained an indefinite continuance of that hearing. Thus, at your request or your neighbor’s request, there has been no opportunity to have an administrative ruling regarding the need for HCC/HCCEF to apply for the Limited Social Assemblies conditional use. Since DPZ has found no violation of the zoning laws, our position remains the same.

2. Belmont Woods Road Conservation Organization was to be formed only if the Limited Assemblies use was granted by Howard County. See Paragraph 3.b.(vi) (b) of the Agreement. This entity was to be formed only if the Limited Social Assemblies conditional use was granted. The conditional use has been neither been applied for nor granted, so there is no need for this organization to exist for the purposes described in the Agreement.

3. There is no basis under the Agreement for charging a toll for using Belmont Woods Road. The Agreement provided that if the Limited Assemblies use was granted to Belmont, the number of trips “in and out” of Belmont would be limited to 80,300 per year, or 220 trips on average per day. The Agreement further provided that if the number of trips exceeded 43,800, any trips in excess of 43,800 would be assessed a toll in the amount of $2.00 for each trip, in or out, in excess of that number, and that these tolls would be paid over to Belmont Woods Road Conservation Organization (“BWRCO”), to be used for the purposes described in the Agreement. This issue has two parts that need to be addressed.

a. Unless there is an application for a conditional use, there is no basis to assess a toll. Until there is a determination that HCC/HCCEF must apply for the conditional use and the conditional use is granted, there is no legal or equitable basis for any toll to be charged or collected. The preamble to Paragraph 3 of Agreement, as quoted above, makes it clear that applying for the Limited Social Assemblies conditional use is an option, not a requirement under the Agreement.

b. Even if the conditional use was granted, the limited number of visitors allowed to visit Belmont is not adequate under the agreement. It is HCC/HCCEF’s mission, as the owner and operator of Belmont, to fully incorporate Belmont into the Elkridge and Howard County communities. The more people that can enjoy the Belmont “historical” experience and its scenic views, the better. Under the Limited Social Assemblies conditional use provisions of the Agreement, no more than an average of 110 people (including employees) can visit Belmont each day, and if more than an average of 60 people visit, then there is a total round-trip toll of $4.00 per visitor. These numbers do not accommodate the number of people who should be visiting Belmont as HCC/HCCEF’s mission for Belmont is implemented in the future.

4. The enforcement of the Limited Social Assemblies conditional use could violate the provisions of the Maryland Historical Trust easement. The traffic limitations described in the Agreement, if enforced, would work against the whole purpose of the Maryland Historical Trust easement. The purpose of that easement is to provide for the preservation of Belmont so the citizens of Maryland could partake of its history, scenic views, and ambience. Thus, this limitation, arguably, conflicts with the Maryland Historical Trust easement and may not be enforceable in any event.

As you know, there are other provisions to the Agreement besides dealing with the Limited Social Assemblies conditional use. As we have already done, we have worked together on signage for Belmont Woods Road, and you have provided the pull-off areas. Belmont has improved its marketing materials providing directions to Belmont. Fortunately, traffic calming devices have not been required, as yet. As for directing traffic, we are working on a plan for the future that will minimize traffic concerns when there are large events. And, as always, if you or other neighbors suffer any damages to your property, we will work with you to obtain appropriate restitution.

We are also appreciative of the provisions in the Agreement that reflect your anticipated cooperation, when the time comes, to take advantage of the right-of-way to Landing Road from Belmont for the construction of a new road. Your foresight in understanding the need for this road in the future is seen as a very positive aspect of the Agreement, and we are anticipating your cooperation as the plans for this road begin to take shape.

Please feel free to contact me to discuss any of the issues outlined in this letter. Until then, I will assume that all of your questions and concerns have been adequately addressed.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Davis, Counsel
Howard Community College Educational Foundation, Inc.