24 A.3d 167
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- HNS Development sought to amend the Longfield Estates CRG Plan to subdivide Lot 42 and Parcel A and add a lot, which was denied by the CRG based on master plan conflict notes.
- Appellees appealed the denial; the Board remanded to Planning Board to determine Master Plan conflict, ultimately finding a Master Plan conflict and remanding back to Board.
- Planning Board adopted Keller’s 2008 report finding conflict with the Master Plans; County Council took no action to overrule.
- Appellant challenged de novo Board proceedings and sought judicial review in the Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board’s decision.
- The core legal questions were (a) whether the deemed approval by CRG delay could be reviewed under B.C.C. § 22-61(c), and (b) whether the Master Plan conflicts render the amended plan illegitimate.
- The court held that the deemed approval issue is reviewable and that the Master Plan is binding in development/subdivision matters in Baltimore County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is deemed approval by CRG delay reviewable? | HNS argues deemed approval immunizes plan from review under 22-61(c). | Appellees argue waiver and that review is not foreclosed; plan may still be reviewed. | Review allowed; deemed approval not immune to 22-61(c). |
| Is the Master Plan binding and does it bar the amended plan? | Master Plan is a guide; notes 18/19 permit development; no binding constraint on amendments. | Master Plan is binding for subdivision development; amendments must conform to it. | Master Plan binding; conflict exists; amended plan cannot be allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Md.-Nat’l Cap. P. & P. Comm’n, 293 Md. 24, 441 A.2d 1041 (1982) (Md. 1982) (master plan compliance required for subdivision approvals)
- Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner, 176 Md.App. 292, 933 A.2d 405 (2007) (Md. App. 2007) (master plan provisions may bind subdivision decisions; conform-to-master-plan rule)
- Pomeranc-Burke, LLC v. Wicomico Envtl. Trust, Ltd., 197 Md.App. 714, 14 A.3d 1266 (2011) (Md. App. 2011) (boards may deny subdivision if not conforming to master plan; substantial deference to planning provisions)
- Washington Bus. Park Assocs. v. Md.-Nat’l Cap. P. & P. Comm’n, 294 Md. 302, 449 A.2d 414 (1982) (Md. 1982) (subdivision compliance with master plan required; plan must conform)