Bowie v. Board of County Commissioners
36 A.3d 1038
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- WSG applied for a special exception to operate a ‘research facility’ in Nanjemoy, MD (AC zone) and the Board held three hearings before granting the exception with conditions.
- The Board conducted a site visit with limited attendance and without a transcript or minutes, and did not include the visit in the record.
- Opponents (Bowie et al.) challenged procedural shortcomings, including the site visit’ open meetings and due process implications.
- Circuit Court remanded for consideration of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, but otherwise upheld the Board’s decision.
- This appeal focuses on whether the site visit violated due process and open meetings requirements, prompting reversal on narrow grounds.
- The Court remands to the Board for a new, record-based hearing with proper open meetings compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board’s site visit violate due process and open meetings rules? | Bowie argues the site visit was closed to some attendees and not recorded, breaching due process. | Board contends no improper closure occurred and rule compliance was sufficient. | Yes; site visit violated due process and open meetings requirements. |
| Was the site visit information properly preserved on the record for review? | Bowie asserts material observations from the site visit were not disclosed in the record. | Board argues the visit was incidental and therefore not required to be recorded. | The site-visit record was missing; requires remand for proper recordation. |
| Did the Board’s handling of the site visit affect the merits of the decision? | Bowie claims reliance on unrecorded site-visit observations biased the decision. | Board asserts findings were based on testimony and site plan, not the visit alone. | Remand necessary to cure due-process/open-meetings defects before addressing merits. |
| Should the case be remanded for a new, record-based hearing on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? | Remand is needed to articulate findings on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. | Remand only for proper site-visit procedure is sufficient; merits preserved. | Remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heath v. Baltimore, 187 Md. 296 (Md. 1946) (reversal when board based on premises study without record support)
- White v. North, 121 Md.App. 196 (Md. 1998) (site visit observations must be on the record or supplemented for response)
- Powell v. Calvert County, 137 Md.App. 425 (Md. 2001) (remand when board’s site visit lacked integral record)
- Noble v. Kootenai County, 231 P.3d 1034 (Idaho 2010) (open meetings violated where site visit not accessible to public)
- In re Quechee Lakes Corp., 580 A.2d 957 (Vt. 1990) (site-visit observations must be part of record to preserve right of rebuttal)