Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2010

Home

February 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 3 Zoning Bulletin of cuts, fill, blasting and regrading required to develop the site. "Al- though § 1.11 [did] not contain specific provisions as to amounts of cutting, blasting, regrading or earth removal that would be re- garded as excessive," the court said the Commission members were "entitled to rely on their expertise and judgment concerning matters within their knowledge ...." Grounds for Grant or Denial —Commission approves preliminary subdivision plan based on conformance with Master Plan Challengers say Commission had to also consider objectives in General Plan Citation: Maryland -Nat. Capital Park and Planning Com'n v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass'n, 2009 WL 4959376 (Md. 2009) MARYLAND (12/12/09)—This case addressed the following issue: whether a planning commission was required by relevant statutory law to consider the residential growth recommendation of the county's Gen- eral Plan in reaching the conclusion that the subdivision plan conformed to the requirements of the area Master Plan. The Background/Facts: In December 2005, Donald Cox applied to the county's planning commission (the "Commission") for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan. Cox proposed 20 single-family detached residential lots on 118.30 acres (the "Property") in the county. Eventually, the Commission approved by resolution (the "Resolu- tion") Cox's preliminary plan. The Resolution approving Cox's preliminary plan was challenged by the Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association and eight individual area resi- dents (collectively, the "Citizens"). The Citizens contended that the Com- mission was required to consider if and how Cox's proposed subdivision complied with the numeric residential growth objective (the "Growth Ob- jective") of the 2002 Approved Countywide General Plan (the "General Plan"). The General Plan provided the Growth Objective for the Rural Tier (the area where the Property was located). That Growth Objective was to capture "less than 1 percent of the [c]ounty's dwelling unit growth by the year 2025." In explaining the basis of the approval, the Resolution made no mention of the General Plan's Growth Objective. The Commission acknowledged that the county's subdivision regula- tions (the "Regulations") required it to, before approving preliminary subdivision plan: "determine broadly ... that [the application] conforms to the applicable Master Plan." The Commission noted that the ap- plicable Master Plan did not specify a percentage objective or goal for countywide residential growth within the Rural Tier. The Commission 10 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 58