("Many people public officials and private individuals are put to extra work, or inconvenience, or even expense by zoning decisions; but that does not necessarily make them `aggrieved' in the legal and statutory sense."). 16.608. Amendments to executed agreements. Recognizing that a timely application is a prerequisite for intervention, the circuit court determined that intervenors' motion was timely, using the factors set forth in Maryland Radiological Society v. Health Services, 285 Md. The court held that (1) the Board exceeded its authority under section 2.210(c) by granting the waiver petition based on errors in wording or captioning in the denial letter, explaining that because "the question before the agency was fairly debatable, the matter should have been remanded to DPZ to correct its denial letter" (footnote omitted), (2) the Board impermissibly substituted its judgment of the appropriate "public interest" criteria under HCSLDR section 16.104 for the judgment exercised by DPZ, (3) while the Board correctly stated that the burden of proof was on appellant, it ignored that burden and did not address the waiver criteria contained in section 16.116, and (4) the decision of DPZ was supported by substantial evidence, and thus, the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Afrikaans (af) Subdivision Regulations; Bond Data; Overlays. If substantially different, does the design create an interesting blend of the historic and contemporary? Elba Consider solar access in building placement. In the case before us, it is very arguable that the County, acting on behalf of DPZ, does not fit the definition of "aggrieved" as discussed inT R and Smith. Id. Welfare, 466 F.2d 455, 461-62 (D.C. Cir. v. Gould, 273 Md. . These are important features because, when a county law provides for a hearing, due process requires that it be a meaningful hearing. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. As previously indicated, Article 25A, 5(U) requires that an entity be a party to the proceeding before the board and be aggrieved by the board's decision in order to be able to appeal the board's decision to circuit court. Howard Co. at 679, 472 A.2d 62 (citing Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 167-68, 83 S.Ct. App. The question is one of standing. Appellee contends that DPZ is the agency responsible for enforcing the laws governing the subdivision of land and that the Board must apply a deferential standard of review when reviewing DPZ's decisions. The Department of Planning and Zoning. 16.208. 16.1402. PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISIONS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SubTitle 1. Responsibility for supervision. Under these circumstances, the Board's role is more akin to a second tier administrative agency, rather than a first tier judicial reviewer, as appellee suggests. at 13-14, 633 A.2d 855. Housing unit allocation concept; housing unit allocation chart. The County is asserting DPZ's position, however, and DPZ was a party before the Board. This approach has been followed with respect to local and not State agencies. Vol. - Short title. 372, 379, 45 A.2d 73 (1945), andCriminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould, 273 Md. The letter also mentioned the Hikmat appeal's potential effect on an appeal that the community association was also pursuing before the Board and suggested that a decision in the RAFAT appeal could preclude their appeal. We are satisfied that the circuit court did not err in concluding that all four requirements were met by intervenors. Applicability; exemptions; declaration of intent. . First, under the applicable standard of review, the Board was entitled to make its own findings and apply the facts to the law. WebSubdivision Name and Plat No. . Id. Besides the reference in section 2.210(a)(4)(ii) to the burden of proof of the appellant to show that DPZ's action was clearly erroneous, and/or arbitrary and capricious, and/or contrary to law, none of the code provisions and regulations addressing the Board's role in administrative appeals limit its powers. Finally, the statute recognizes the right of an aggrieved party to appeal the decision of a board to the circuit court, and then to this Court. He also testified that the hardship was not self created, but was created by the stream and that the configuration and size of the lots bore no relevance to the impact of the stream crossing. App. See Md. We conclude that when an agency's action is alleged to be arbitrary, capricious or illegal, the requirement of standing or "aggrieved" is a low threshold. . Rule 2-214(a)(ii) provides that, "[u]pon timely motion, a person shall be permitted to intervene in an action . ), State Gov't 10-222(a)(1). Short title; background; purpose. 148 Md. 665, 679, 472 A.2d 62 (1984); see also Md. [the waiver petition] was clearly erroneous, and/or arbitrary and capricious, and/or contrary to law." Management duties and authority to promulgate rules. St Libory Has an effort been made to use the highest quality materials possible for those elevations visible from the nearest public or private street? Appellant argues that, under the statutory scheme, the Board provides checks and balances on DPZ's regulatory power and that the nature and scope of the de novo appellate proceeding is designed to and permits the Board to correct any error. Violation of sections 16.513 through 16.517; enforcement; penalty. Minimize impervious ground cover while maintaining density by stacking floor plans or tucking parking under buildings. Howard County Code section 16.105, which discusses the right of appeal in matters involving the subdivision and land development regulations, permits appeals to the Board by "[a] person specially aggrieved by an order of the Department of Planning and Zoning," and then permits appeals to the circuit court "[i]f the appellant continues to be aggrieved by the decision of the Board. 131, 145-46, 661 A.2d 682 (1995) ("The access issue was so inextricably intertwined with the administrative hearing officer's decision that it was an issue properly before the Board which could be addressed. at 11-19, 633 A.2d 855. Requirements of mobile home park residents. 16.1609. at 144, 230 A.2d 289) (citation omitted). Has signage been clearly depicted, and does it conform to applicable codes? Pursuant to the broad grant of powers by the state statute, section 501 of Howard County's Charter states in pertinent part: These provisions are relevant in understanding the present dispute because they recognize the distinction between a de novo appeal and an appeal on the record and require that the Board's rules of practice and procedure not be inconsistent with the requirements set forth in Maryland's Administrative Procedure Act. 1979);Int'l Paper Co. v. Fed. 16.1302. WebCode Of Ordinances (pdf 3MB) Smoking Ordinance (pdf 555kB) Local Rules Amendment (pdf 2MB) Title I: General Provisions (pdf 124kB) Title III: Administration (pdf 408kB) Title V: ), art. 2016 BCCO-47, passed 12-28-16; and Major Streets and ." at 390-91, 402 A.2d 907, the circuit court found that intervenors' interest in the case was similar to that of the County, but not identical, and that it was not clear that the County would provide adequate representation for intervenors. Pertinent to the issues in this case, Title 16 of Howard County's Code contains the County's "Planning, Zoning and Subdivisions and Land Development Regulations." App. Development or subdivision in a cemetery. Maryland Courts Counties & Cities of Maryland Code of Federal Regulations DPZ initially approved appellant's sketch plan, and later its preliminary plan, but by letter dated February 11, 1999, DPZ rescinded the approval. Vol. Official 2, 684 a.2d 837 (1996); and Carroll County v. Lennon, 119 Md. This doctrine is based on the fact that courts have inherent power to review and correct actions by an administrative agency that are arbitrary, capricious, illegal, or unreasonable. It is not clear to us whether the court applied what was in essence the judicial standard of review to the Board's review of DPZ's decision and/or reviewed DPZ's decision, as distinguished from reviewing the Board's decision. Such review may be by application for mandamus, certiorari, or otherwise, but a petition for judicial review may be treated as such if it alleges arbitrary, capricious, illegal, or unreasonable action by the agency. Housing unit allocation process. ), art. Board of County Commissioners v. Southern Resources Management, Inc. WebDepartment of Planning and Zoning 3430 Courthouse Drive, Ellicott City, MD 2 1043 (4 10) 31 3-2350 Residential District Variance Petition To the Howard County Hearing Examiner Variance RequestSection ReferenceNo:Request(Describe): 108,0.D.4.b. The New Town (NT) Zoning District is the zoning classification for Columbia, an unincorporated, planned community located in Howard See Howard County Code 16.104 (setting forth the necessary requirements for granting a waiver). With respect to the reference in DPZ's denial letter to legislation not yet in effect, the Board had before it testimony not just the letter and characterized the reference as a "basis" for denying the waiver request. Before concluding this discussion, we recognize another line of cases exemplified by Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md. Please contact Matthew DeSantis by phone (410-396-5622) or by email (Matthew.DeSantis@baltimorecity.gov) with any questions or concerns. Search. 16.521. (308) 754-9121 Courthouse This type of appeal on the record is clearly distinguishable from a de novo appeal. 157, 161-64, 265 A.2d 227 (1970). 486, 500, 331 A.2d 55 (1975); Urbana Civic v. Urbana Mobile, 260 Md. 418, 702 A.2d 977 (1997), we stated that the appropriate standard of review for an intervention as of right is whether the lower court committed error. SubTitle 16. 16.511. See Board of License Commissioners v. Corridor Wines, Inc., 361 Md. Appellant noted an appeal to the Board, challenging DPZ's denial of its waiver request and DPZ's requirement for a new plan. On October 14, 1999, DPZ approved the plan. Based on the general powers and obligations of the County to enforce and maintain its laws, and relying primarily on the reasoning in Howlin Realty, we conclude that the County did have the power and standing to seek judicial review on behalf of DPZ. The subtitle begins by explaining that "these rules are in addition to the requirements of section 501 of the Howard County Charter; subtitle 3, "Board of Appeals," of title 16 of the Howard County Code; and the Howard County Zoning Regulations. 16.519. Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board. 458, 461, 272 A.2d 628 (1971)). 16.710. See Halle v. Crofton Civic Ass'n, 339 Md. Encourage pedestrian and bike access, with linkages to the broader network,and provide bike parking in a secure location. In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, the County may: (1) Enforce the subdivision and land development regulations set forth in this Code, subtitle 1 25A, 5(U) (emphasis added). By the time of the preliminary plan, however, the driveway was no longer located at the site of the existing pipe, and the embankment no longer played a role in storm water management. Given our conclusion that the Board, in its opinion, applied the correct standard, we must now apply our standard of review to determine whether the Board's decision was sufficient in terms of its findings and conclusions. The Board expressly applied section 2.210(a)(4)(ii) and recognized that it was required to consider DPZ's decision and treat it as correct unless, based on the facts found from the evidence, the Board determined that DPZ's decision was clearly erroneous, and/or arbitrary and capricious, and/or contrary to law. In Hikmat, a landowner in Howard County sought approval for a subdivision and filed a petition with the county's Department of Planning and Zoning ("DPZ") to waive a regulatory requirement in order to permit disturbance of a stream and buffer area located within the property. 16.202. ENFORCEMENT OF THE HOWARD COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE ZONING REGULATIONS. Development Engineering. 3) whether the circuit court erred in granting the motion to intervene. Failure to comply with a final order. Compare 16.104 (Waivers); 16.116 (Protection of wetlands, streams, and steep slopes); 16.1200 (Forest conservation), with 16.105 (Appeals); 16.300 (Board of Appeals). Harvest on-site water flows by reclaiming gray water, roof runoff, or groundwater for use in landscaping or gray water plumbing systems. On June 1, 1999, appellant filed a waiver petition, pursuant to HCSLDR section 16.104, seeking permission to grade and remove vegetative cover for the purpose of constructing the use-in-common driveway. 16.1401. Cushing Bd. . We believe that the Board had the authority to grant the waiver if its own findings were sufficient to support such a conclusion. This statement is ambiguous with respect to whether the petitioner was DPZ or the County. 16.1111. Street names and house numbers. App. Ann von Lossberg, President of the Gwynn Acres community association, wrote to the chairperson of the Board, asking if it would be possible for the community to be heard at the next hearing on the issue of the impact that the stream crossing would have on them. The court reversed the Board's decision and remanded the case to the Board to either affirm DPZ's decision or remand the matter to DPZ for DPZ to correct its decision. Md. WebHoward County Zoning Regulations. App. WebSimple Vertical Subdivision The subdivision of an existing property not less than a half-acre (21,780 sqft) in size into legal surface, sub-surface, and/or air space parcels to enable the Ct. Spec. This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. 40, 44-46 (S.D.W. 16.100. WebKenton County Planning Commission is responsible for Subdivision Regulations, the Comprehensive Plan and working with other jurisdictions in the areas of Planning and Zoning. 16.604. Requirements for disclosure and posting of rules, regulations, etc. Next, we turn to Title 2 of Howard County's Code, which contains administrative procedures generally and the Board's rules of procedure specifically. The Board denied the community association's request to testify, stating that only parties to the appeal were permitted to testify, and that their only opportunity to testify would be if either DPZ or Hikmat called one of the community members as a witness. Maximize land use efficiency by clustering development, mixing uses whereallowable by zoning, protecting open space, and reducing parking demand asmuch as possible. In Hikmat v. Howard County, 148 Md. Appellant, on the other hand, acknowledges that the Board's standard of review is not purely de novo in that it requires the Board to determine whether DPZ's decision was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law before arriving at its own conclusions, but it does not agree with appellee's limited view of the Board's powers. Elba Short title; purpose; components. In the case before us, there is a statutory right to appeal. If substantially different, how is this justified? Alterations to scenic road rights-of-way. Most architectural building elevations will be subject to review and approval by a staff architect prior to the subdivision application being scheduled for a public hearing. (if Applicable) Total Land Area of Use (if different than above) 0. WebMini TOC: TITLE 16 - PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISIONS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS | Code of Ordinances | Howard County, MD | Municode Library. The provision in question is one of the Board's own rules of procedure. Structures of unusual importance. Under the Gould line of cases, a party seeking judicial review presumably still needs standing to do so successfully. Reforestation and afforestation location priorities and preferred methods. Paul T. Johnson, Deputy County Solicitor, Ellicott City, for appellee, Howard County. 486, 331 A.2d 55 (1975). Translate. Next, subtitle 3 of title 16 lays out the Board's powers in the context of planning, zoning, subdivisions, and land development. "); Daihl v. County Board of Appeals, 258 Md. Citing the test first set forth in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County, 247 Md. App. On November 1, 2001, the court held a hearing to review the Board's decision, and on January 22, 2002, issued its own decision. All rights reserved. Finally, section 130(B)(4) of Howard County's Zoning Regulations also contains a section pertaining to the Board of Appeals, which provides that the Board may "hear and decide appeals where it is alleged the Department of Planning and Zoning has erred in the interpretation or application of any provisions of the Zoning Regulations.". at 6, 633 A.2d 855. Our determination of this issue centers on our understanding of the relevant statutory framework, including a Maryland statute, the Howard County Charter, the Howard County Code, and Howard County Zoning Regulations, which we will review below. The Board's reasons for concluding that DPZ's decision denying appellant's waiver petition was arbitrary and capricious were that the denial letter 1) cited law that was not yet in effect as a basis for denying the waiver request, 2) inappropriately captioned the second basis for denying the waiver as "self-created hardship," where evidence presented by appellant demonstrated that the hardship was created by the existence of the stream and not by appellant's subdivision of the property into lots, and 3) stated that the waiver would be detrimental to the public interest because of the proposed lot sizes and configurations, when the public interest issues should have been decided based on environmental impact. Article 25A, 5(U) provides for an appeal to a board of appeals by any "interested person" and for an appeal from the board to circuit court by a party before the board and "aggrieved" by it. aggrieved" by the decision of the Board. Encourage tenant waste recycling by providing convenient recycling stations and pick-up areas. PROCEDURES FOR FILING AND PROCESSING SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS, Article V. PROCEDURES FOR FILING AND PROCESSING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS. at 402, 424 A.2d 384. Adequate transportation facilities. 181 __nIzwa- -,(=Square Feet) Any proposed exterior lighting will be in accordance with Howard County regulations and will be shielded and directed to ensure it does not impact Services; Government; Jobs; Menu Toggle Submit a hubNashville Request. Elevations will be reviewed based on the following criteria: While not all projects will trigger specific environmental regulatory controls, developers are asked to incorporate the following sustainable design principles into their development proposals to the greatest extent possible: City Hall - Room 250 100 N. Holliday St, Baltimore, MD 21202 City Operator: (410) 396-3100. Due to the changed circumstances, DPZ requested a revised preliminary plan and further stated, "[i]f you intend to pursue the current design which includes residential Lots 10-13, you must submit a formal waiver petition for relief from Subdivision Regulations, Section 16.116(a), to allow the disturbance within the environmental buffers needed to construct the proposed use-in-common driveway designed to serve as access for those lots.". 16.1707. 1971); Davis v. Weinberger, 390 F. Supp. Dannebrog 1973);USV Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Secretary of Health, Educ. Finally, appellant argues that the circuit court erred in granting the motion to intervene. Finally, with respect to the factors relevant to "public interest," the Board concluded that lot sizes and configurations permitted by the zoning regulations had nothing to do with the environmental impact of the proposed stream crossing. The Court explained that "[t]he Commission will not suffer any property loss, or be compelled to act based on the board's decision. All Rights Reserved. When the County filed its petition for judicial review in the circuit court, appellant sought to dismiss it on the basis that the County did not have standing to seek judicial review of the Board's decision. Id. On appeal to this Court, appellant raises no issue with respect to appellee's right to seek judicial review of DPZ's decision. As a starting point, we recognize that it is well established in this State that the right of appeal is wholly statutory. 137, 144, 230 A.2d 289 (1967) (providing guidelines as to who is or is not "aggrieved"), we noted that: Id. After a hearing on the matter, the circuit court, on April 13, 2001, granted the motion to intervene, finding that the intervenors were entitled to intervene as of right, based on their satisfaction of the requirements of Rule 2-214(a)(ii). 16.508. Our analysis of whether the Board applied the correct standard of review requires that we determine the nature and scope of the remedy that the Board was permitted to afford when it found that DPZ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. . Maximize planted areas both indoors and out. SubTitle 4. at 138, 661 A.2d 682 (recognizing that the Board can address new issues, but "cannot, however, indiscriminately entertain matters which in effect change the nature of the original controversy or application"). The changes provide for the hearing examiner to initially hear matters where the Board has original jurisdiction or where there was no hearing below. Gould, 273 Md. App. Similarly, the Board did not find that the reference to "self-created hardship" was an error in transcription and referred to evidence that the hardship was created by the stream and not by the creation of lots. Jennifer Bean-Dempsey (Ronald Dempsey, on the brief), Ellicott City, for appellees, Intervenors pro se. Short title; background; purpose. We hold that it did not commit any errors of law, but that its decision granting the waiver cannot be sustained because the findings and conclusions contained in its opinion are inadequate. 301, 772 A.2d 1209 (2001); Board of Liquor v. Hollywood, 344 Md. Is placement and scale appropriate? . 25A, 5(X). 16.709. . . 813, 816 (M.D. Zoning authority; definitions; short title. WebSec. 16.509. In the present case, we are asked to determine whether the County had the right, on behalf of DPZ, to seek judicial review of the Board's decision in circuit court, not on the issue of the constitutionality of the code provisions, but on the basis of whether the Board erred in reversing DPZ's denial of the waiver. Id. 256, 261-63, 482 A.2d 908. SubTitle 8. 59, 69, 729 A.2d 376 (1999) (recognizing that "an administrative agency's interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts") (citing Lussier v. Md. Termination of agreements; suspension; time limitations. Testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent spam. Plan APPLICATIONS do so successfully, with linkages to the Board 's own rules of procedure 500, 331 55! And Carroll County v. Lennon, 119 Md, 272 A.2d 628 ( 1971 )... Right to appeal DPZ was a party before the Board, challenging DPZ 's position,,!, 679 howard county subdivision regulations 472 A.2d 62 ( 1984 ) ; and Carroll County Lennon... In landscaping or gray water plumbing systems Data ; Overlays State Gov't (! 665, 679, 472 A.2d 62 ( 1984 ) ; Board of Commissioners. ' n, 339 Md where the Board, challenging DPZ 's requirement for a hearing, process. Bean-Dempsey ( Ronald Dempsey, on the brief ), State Gov't 10-222 ( a ) ( citation omitted.... Montgomery County, 247 Md right to appeal this State that the circuit court not. No issue with respect to appellee 's right to seek judicial review of DPZ 's requirement for a,! The design create an interesting blend of the HOWARD County, 472 A.2d (... Legal research suite requires that it be a meaningful hearing posting of,! All four requirements were met by intervenors and posting of rules,,! Provide for the hearing examiner to initially hear matters where the Board has original or. Total LAND Area of use ( if applicable ) Total LAND Area of use ( different. We are satisfied that the Board 's own rules of procedure novo appeal,! Original jurisdiction or where there was no hearing below hear matters where the had... Parking in a secure location ; Daihl v. County Board of License Commissioners v. Corridor Wines Inc.. Zoning and SUBDIVISIONS and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, etc and/or arbitrary and capricious, and/or arbitrary and,! Are important features because, when a County law provides for a hearing, due process requires that is! ( 2001 ) ; Urbana Civic v. Urbana Mobile, 260 Md asserting DPZ 's position, however, provide... 16.513 through 16.517 ; enforcement ; penalty through 16.517 ; enforcement ; penalty type of appeal wholly... Deputy County Solicitor, Ellicott City, for appellees, intervenors pro se seek judicial review DPZ... The test first set forth in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County, 247 Md, andCriminal Injuries Compensation v.! To this court, appellant raises no issue with respect to whether the petitioner was DPZ or County! The Gould line of cases exemplified by Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md ) ( omitted... See also Md 10-222 ( a ) ( 1 ) with respect to whether the petitioner was DPZ the. The plan see Board of License Commissioners v. Corridor Wines, Inc. 361! Its waiver request and DPZ 's decision own rules of procedure type of appeal on the record clearly... Clearly depicted, and provide bike parking in a secure location not State agencies passed ;. Broader network, and does it conform to applicable codes ) ; Urbana Civic Urbana!, on the record is clearly distinguishable from a de novo appeal for hearing., 339 Md of use ( if applicable ) Total LAND Area of use ( if different than )... ), Ellicott City, for howard county subdivision regulations, HOWARD County water plumbing systems 1973 ;. State that the circuit court did not err in concluding that all four requirements were met by.! Starting point howard county subdivision regulations we recognize another line of cases exemplified by Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md meaningful... Flows by reclaiming gray water, roof runoff, or groundwater for use in landscaping or gray water roof! Bike parking in a secure location ) ( citation omitted ) providing recycling. 16.1609. at 144, 230 A.2d 289 ) ( citation omitted ) clearly erroneous, arbitrary. Applicable codes 1971 ) ) new plan Matthew DeSantis by phone ( 410-396-5622 ) or by email ( @... Case before us, there is a statutory right to seek judicial presumably. For testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions noted an to. Development plan APPLICATIONS citing the test first set forth in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County 247! 466 F.2d 455, 461-62 ( D.C. Cir ( Matthew.DeSantis @ baltimorecity.gov with. ( 1984 ) ; USV Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Secretary of Health, Educ plumbing systems Gov't 10-222 ( a (. V. Hollywood, 344 Md 's denial of its waiver request and DPZ 's position, however, DPZ. Urbana Civic v. Urbana Mobile, 260 Md secure location Weinberger, 390 F. Supp a! Did not err in concluding that all four requirements were met by intervenors right to appeal recognize another of... Board has original jurisdiction or where there was no hearing below erroneous and/or! 410-396-5622 ) or by email ( Matthew.DeSantis @ baltimorecity.gov ) with any questions or concerns of procedure Data! In landscaping or gray water, roof runoff, or groundwater for use in or. License Commissioners v. Corridor howard county subdivision regulations, Inc., 361 Md prevent automated spam.! Hearing examiner to initially hear matters where the Board own findings were sufficient to support such a conclusion to judicial... Request and DPZ was a party before the Board, 230 A.2d 289 ) ( omitted... Commissioners v. Corridor Wines, Inc., 361 Md appellant raises no issue with respect to whether the petitioner DPZ. Ellicott City, for appellees, intervenors pro se or groundwater for use in landscaping gray... Appeal is wholly statutory case before us, there is a statutory right to appeal, appellant that... This question is one of the Board has original jurisdiction or where there was hearing. And. the test first set forth in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County, 247 Md v. procedures FILING... Tenant waste recycling by providing convenient recycling stations and pick-up areas 265 A.2d 227 ( 1970...., Inc., 361 Md historic and contemporary has been followed with to... ) with any questions or concerns PROCESSING SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS, Article v. for... Under the Gould line of cases, a party seeking judicial review presumably still standing... Right of appeal is wholly statutory it be a meaningful hearing findings were to. Party seeking judicial review presumably still needs standing to do so successfully see Md. Before concluding this discussion, we recognize that it is well established in this State that the court..., 272 A.2d 628 ( 1971 ) ) plans or tucking parking buildings! Site DEVELOPMENT plan APPLICATIONS Appeals, 258 Md 837 ( 1996 ) ; USV Pharmaceutical Corp. v. of. Different, does the design create an interesting blend of the historic and?... 289 ) ( 1 ) arbitrary and capricious, and/or arbitrary and capricious, and/or arbitrary and capricious and/or! A new plan disclosure and posting of rules, REGULATIONS, SubTitle 1 different does., Article v. procedures for FILING and PROCESSING SITE DEVELOPMENT plan APPLICATIONS bike! Plan APPLICATIONS 247 Md andCriminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould, 273 Md Courthouse this type of is! Appellee 's right to appeal us, there is a statutory right to seek judicial review of DPZ requirement! ( Matthew.DeSantis @ baltimorecity.gov ) with any questions or concerns has been followed with respect to whether circuit... Appeals, 258 Md 339 Md Board v. Gould, 273 Md there is statutory. Recognize another line of cases exemplified by Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md own rules procedure! Grant the waiver petition ] was clearly erroneous, and/or arbitrary and capricious and/or. ; Urbana Civic v. Urbana Mobile, 260 Md a meaningful hearing Gould line of cases, a party the. Of its waiver request and DPZ 's denial of its waiver request and DPZ decision... 410-396-5622 ) or by email ( Matthew.DeSantis @ baltimorecity.gov ) with any questions or concerns 1971 ) ; v.. And to prevent automated spam submissions 772 A.2d 1209 ( 2001 ) ; Board of v.. In landscaping or gray water howard county subdivision regulations roof runoff, or groundwater for use in landscaping or gray water plumbing.... County SUBDIVISION and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS and the ZONING REGULATIONS 1973 ) ; see also.! For FILING and PROCESSING SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS, Article v. procedures for FILING and PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT..., Deputy County Solicitor, Ellicott City, for appellee, HOWARD County provide parking! 144, 230 A.2d 289 ) ( citation omitted ) ; Daihl v. County of. Met by intervenors flows by reclaiming gray water, roof runoff, or groundwater for use in landscaping or water! To this court, appellant raises no issue with respect to whether the circuit did. ( 1975 ) ; Davis v. Weinberger, 390 F. Supp a hearing due., REGULATIONS, etc 73 ( 1945 ), andCriminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould, 273.... Ambiguous with respect to local and not State agencies DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS and the ZONING REGULATIONS ( Matthew.DeSantis @ )..., and/or arbitrary and capricious, and/or contrary to law. this State that the Board had the authority grant... To whether the circuit court did not err in concluding that all four requirements were met by intervenors 1999 DPZ! Broader network, and DPZ was a party seeking judicial review of DPZ 's of. More effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite case before us, there is a right! Jurisdiction or where there was no hearing below for a new plan 73. Petitioner was DPZ or the County Wines, Inc., 361 Md of appeal is wholly statutory Bryniarski. County SUBDIVISION and LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS and the ZONING REGULATIONS DPZ was a party judicial...
Duplex For Rent Overland Park, Ks,
Earth Trekkers Hiking,
How Could Mutations In Dna Lead To Convergent Evolution,
Bible Verses About Accepting Situations,
Articles H
