Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC
439 Md. 588
Md.2014Background
- DCW Dutchship Island, LLC, owned by Daryl Wagner, purchased Little Island in 2000; island ~1.92 acres with a 1920s house; Wagner demolished the house and planned a new 2,883 sq ft residence and related improvements.
- County enforcement: in 2004, Anne Arundel County discovered unlawful development on the island and DCW sought variances and a buffer-map amendment in late 2004.
- Administrative process: an Administrative Hearing Officer held hearings; variances granted for some structures; MRA, CBF, and the Commission appealed to the Board of Appeals.
- Proceedings: Board denied standing for CBF in the variance portion; Petitioners appealed circuit court, which affirmed; issues included standing, due process, and variance merits.
- Here, this Court granted certiorari to review (1) CBF standing; (2) Express Powers Act compatibility; (3) due process in cross-examination; (4) after-the-fact variances.
- Holding: the Court answered the first three questions in the negative and the fourth in the affirmative, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBF standing before the Board of Appeals. | MRA’s standing confers piggy-back standing to CBF. | Piggy-back standing does not apply in administrative hearings; AACC 3-1-104(a) requires aggrieved party status. | No standing for CBF to participate in variance proceedings. |
| Validity of the Express Powers Act constraint (AACC 3-1-104(a)). | AACC 3-1-104(a) does not exceed local Home Rule powers. | AACC 3-1-104(a) is a valid condition precedent under Home Rule and Express Powers Act. | AACC 3-1-104(a) does not violate the Express Powers Act. |
| Cross-examination rights for CBF at the variance hearing. | CBF was deprived of cross-examination rights, violating due process. | Non-parties may be limited; full cross-examination not required for due process. | Board’s cross-examination rules complied; no remand required on this issue. |
| Whether Wagner’s variances were properly granted as after-the-fact variances. | After-the-fact variances should be scrutinized as for before-the-fact; possible invalid result. | After-the-fact variances are governed by the same criteria as before-the-fact; Board acted properly. | Variances partially improper; remand to re-evaluate minimum variance and related issues; affirmed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sugarloaf Citizens’ Ass’n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Auth., 344 Md. 271 (1996) (administrative standing depends on statutes/regulations unless specifics exist)
- People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Crown Development Corp., 328 Md. 303 (1992) (standing rules for administrative actions)
- Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43 (2008) (standing on one side may not be expanded unnecessarily)
- Clickner v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 192 Md.App. 172 (2010) (aggrieved definition in administrative context; remand guidance)
- Cromwell v. Ward, 102 Md.App. 691 (1995) (self-created hardship concerns in variances)
- Belvoir Farms Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 259 (1999) (self-created hardship and use of variance criteria)
- Becker v. Anne Arundel County, 174 Md.App. 114 (2007) (minimum variance necessity and need for explanation on remand)
- Moreland v. Moreland LLC, 418 Md. 111 (2011) (standard for reviewing variance findings; need for meaningful factual findings)
- Chesley v. City of Annapolis, 176 Md.App. 413 (2007) (legislative amendments impacting variance standards)
- Citrano v. North, 123 Md.App. 234 (1998) (water-dependent facilities and buffer considerations)