Critical Area Commission v. Moreland, LLC, 12 A.3d 1223

Two parcels on Warehouse Creek in Anne Arundel County within the Chesapeake Bay critical area sought variances to build two single-family homes and to clear more vegetation than allowed.
The Board of Appeals denied the variances; the circuit court remanded for lack of written findings tied to specific evidence; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
This case centers on how much evidentiary detail a Board must provide to support its adverse findings and enable meaningful judicial review.
The Board’s adverse findings focused on the proposed impervious surface and vegetation removal harming Warehouse Creek’s water quality.
The Board summarized testimony from environmental witnesses in a separate section, linking it to its conclusions that the variances failed under the critical area criteria.
This Court reversed the Court of Special Appeals, holding the Board’s evidentiary references were adequate for meaningful review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there adequate evidentiary support for water quality adverse impacts?	Moreland contends no specific evidentiary basis tied to findings.	Commission argues Board adequately reflected substantial evidence in separate section.	Adequate evidentiary support existed.
Must a Board attach evidentiary references immediately after each finding for meaningful review?	Moreland relies on Becker that separate summaries are insufficient.	Board may summarize evidence, with meaningfully connected findings.	Separation allowed; meaningful review possible when evidence is summarized and linked to conclusions.
Did the court need to address the presumption that buffer construction harms water quality?	Presumption should be treated as part of the review.	Not necessary to decide if issue dispositive is resolved by the adequacy finding.	Not necessary to reach this issue given resolution of the evidentiary adequacy issue.

Bucktail, LLC v. County Council of Talbot County, 352 Md. 530 (1999) (foundations for meaningful review require articulation of evidentiary basis for conclusions)
Annapolis Market Place LLC v. Parker, 369 Md. 689 (2002) ( Boards must demonstrate evidentiary basis for zoning change findings; bare conclusions insufficient)
Mastandrea v. North, 361 Md. 107 (2000) (environmental evidence supporting variances can justify conclusions about water quality/permeability)
Alviani v. Dixon, 365 Md. 95 (2001) ( Boards may rely on evidence in record; reasoned description of neighborhood and impact is adequate)
Becker v. Anne Arundel County, 174 Md.App. 114 (2007) (Board must provide evidentiary basis; absence of evidence supports remand)