HNS Development, LLC v. People's Counsel
425 Md. 436
| Md. | 2012Background
- 1991 Master Plan conflict with scenic view of Langenfelder Mansion (Rockwood) and notes restricting Lot 42/Parcel A; Note 18 discouraged future development but no restrictions placed.
- Phase II of Longfield Estates approved with nine lots restricted to preserve view; Lot 42 and Parcel A retained by owner with Note 18 urging conservation easement.
- HNS Development purchased Lot 42 and Parcel A (13 acres) in 2004 with knowledge of Note 18, sought amended development plan to subdivide Lot 42 and place dwellings on Parcel A.
- Planning Board and CRG rejected the amended plan in 2005–2006 due to Master Plan conflict; Board of Appeals remanded for further Planning Board consideration.
- Planning Board remand (2008) found a Master Plan conflict with 1989–2000 and 2010 Master Plans; County Council took no action to override or reserve the property.
- Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve whether Master Plan compliance is an independent regulatory requirement and whether a taking or exaction issues arise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Master Plan compliance an independent regulatory requirement in development review? | HNS: Master Plan compliance is de facto deemed satisfied by meeting development regs. | People's Counsel/GKCA: Master Plan compliance is a discrete, binding requirement. | Yes; Master Plan compliance is an independent regulatory prerequisite. |
| Did the Board of Appeals create a taking without just compensation? | HNS asserted a taking due to Master Plan conflict denial. | No proper preservation; no justiciable taking. | Waived on merits; no justiciable taking. |
| Is Note 18 an exaction under Waterman? | Note 18 functions as an exaction/grant of development rights. | Note 18 is not an exaction. | Note 18 is not an exaction; moot after Master Plan conflict ruling. |
| Does 'deemed approved' status immunize amended plan from Master Plan review? | HNS relied on deemed approval to bypass Master Plan review. | Deemed approval cannot immunize Plan from Master Plan review. | Deemed approval does not immunize; Master Plan conflict governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rylyns, Ltd. v. Rylyns Enters., Inc., 372 Md. 514 (Md. 2002) (Master Plans become regulatory devices when integrated with zoning/development regs.)
- Coffey v. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 293 Md. 24 (Md. 1982) (Subdivision plans must conform to the master plan when rules require it.)
- Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 412 Md. 73 (Md. 2009) (Master Plan provisions mandatory where applicable to development approvals.)
- City of Annapolis v. Waterman, 357 Md. 484 (Md. 2000) (Exactions analysis; notes not automatically exactions.)
- Loyola Coll. in Md. v. People's Counsel for Balt. Co., 406 Md. 54 (Md. 2008) (Judicial review of local agency decisions; deference to agency findings.)