Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2010 I Volume 4 1 No. 3 acknowledged that the Master Plan required consistency with the Gen- eral Plan, which contained the Growth Objective. However; the Com- mission argued that it was not required to determine whether proposed subdivisions complied with the Growth Objective because the General Plan's Growth Objective was "irrelevant" to the subdivision review pro- cess. The Growth Objective, it said, was "a long-term objective designed to measure whether the [c]ounty is meeting its goals, policies, and objec- tives in the Rural Tier" and was intended to be used for the monitor- ing of growth activity. Also growth, the Commission further argued, was meant to be controlled through mechanisms such as conservation and easements —not the subdivision process. The circuit court agreed with the Citizens. It held that the Commis- sion failed to "articulate findings of fact with regard to" the Growth Ob- jective. It remanded the case to the Commission for further consideration and findings. The Commission and Cox appealed. The court of special appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. The Commission filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court's Decision: Judgment in favor of the Citizens affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Commission was re- quired to consider the General Plan's Growth Objectives when determin- ing whether to approve or reject Cox's preliminary subdivision plan. The court explained that, "[i]n the context of subdivision matters ... the recommendations of a master plan may be binding to the extent there is a statute, regulation, or ordinance requiring that a proposed sub- division conform to the master plan." .Accordingly, the court said that a preliminary subdivision plan that failed to conform with the master plan "must be rejected." Here, the court found statutes and regulations required Cox's pro- posed subdivision to conform to the applicable Master Plan. Maryland statutory law (Article 28, § 7-115(a)(1) of the Maryland Code) required any subdivision of land within the "regional district" be approved by the Commission. The Commission was required to apply the county's Regu- lations when determining whether to approve a subdivision plan within the county. The county's Regulations did not specifically require confor- mance to the General Plan. However, the purpose of the Regulations was to "guide development according to the General Plan ...." Further, the Regulations did require subdivision plats "to conform" to the area Mas- ter Plan. Also, the area Master Plan stated that it was "generally in ac- cordance with the General Plan." This, said the court, meant that the Master Plan had to be "consistent and compatible" with the General Plan. To the extent it was not, the General Plan prevailed, said the court. Rejecting the Commission's arguments, the court concluded that, based on the statutory law, the Commission, in analyzing Cox's appli- cation: had to ensure conformance with the Master Plan; and since the ® 2010 Thomson Reuters 11 59