WSG Holdings, LLC v. Bowie, 57 A.3d 463

WSG sought a zoning special exception to build a firing range, driving track, and office complex on an 80‑acre Nanjemoy parcel zoned Agricultural Conservation.
The Board held three hearings and conducted a site visit on March 17, 2009, limiting attendance to certain representatives and producing no transcript or record of the visit.
Respondents contended the site visit violated open meetings requirements under Article 66B, the Charles County Code, and Board rules; the visit was said to be participatory and relied upon by the Board in its decision.
The Board approved the special exception and later included the site visit in its findings; Respondents sought judicial review challenging the process and the lack of a public record.
The Circuit Court remanded to articulate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and otherwise upheld the Board’s decision; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, concluding the site visit violated open meetings rules and remanded for a new hearing.
The Court held that objections were preserved, the site visit was a public meeting requiring openness, and the Board’s actions violated mandatory open meetings provisions; the Board’s decision was void ab initio, and remand for a new on‑record hearing was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were objections to the site visit preserved for review?	Respondents preserved objections via Mot. for Appropriate Relief.	Board contends objections were not timely preserved.	Yes; objections preserved.
Was the March 17, 2009 site visit a 'meeting' open to the public?	Site visit constituted a meeting and required public openness.	Site visit was mere observation and not subject to open meetings.	Yes, it was a meeting requiring openness.
Did the Board violate open meetings requirements by proceeding without a public record or notice?	Visit lacked public notice and recording and influenced the decision.	No substantial violation or adequate remedies existed.	Yes, violation occurred; record and notice were lacking.
What is the appropriate remedy for the open meetings violations?	Decision should be void ab initio and remanded for new on‑record proceedings.	Remand with limited guidance to correct procedure may suffice.	Decision void ab initio; remand for a new on‑record hearing.

Bowie v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Charles County, 203 Md.App. 153 (Md. App. 2012) (open meetings violations in site visits; remand guidance)
In re Ryan S., 369 Md. 26 (Md. 2002) (waiver notions; objection timing not controlling here)
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Theiss, 354 Md. 234 (Md. 1999) (preservation of objections in administrative settings)
Howlin Realty Mgt., Inc. v. Calvert County Planning Comm’n, 364 Md. 301 (Md. 2001) (due process fairness vs. strict procedural adherence)
State v. Cates, 417 Md. 678 (Md. 2011) (due process limitations where strict adherence yields no extra fairness)
Board of Cty Comm’rs of Carroll County v. Landmark Comm’ Newspapers, 293 Md. 595 (Md. 1982) (open meetings principles and public records)
City of Baltimore Development Corp. v. Carmel Realty Assocs., 395 Md. 299 (Md. 2006) (breadth of openness and public access to meetings)
von Lusch v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 268 Md. 445 (Md. 1973) (void ab initio when mandatory open procedures are violated)
Heath v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 187 Md. 296 (Md. 1946) (recording and site inspection require disclosure of information relied upon)
In re Quechee Lakes Corp., 154 Vt. 543 (Vt. 1990) (site visit observations must be recorded when relied upon)