Laserfiche WebLink
February 10, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 3 Zoning Bulletin <br />Master Plan had to be compatible with the General Plan, had to consider <br />the Growth Objective of the General Plan. <br />See also: Coffey v. Maryland -National Capital Park and Planning Com- <br />mission, 293 Md. 24, 441 A.2d 1041 (1982). <br />See also: Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner, 176 Md. App. 292, 933 <br />A.2d 40S (2007), cert. granted, 403 Md. 304, 941 A.2d 1104 (2008) <br />and judgment aff'd, 405 Md. 43, 949 A.2d 639 (2008). <br />Case Note: The court noted that, although it was mandatory that <br />the Commission consider the Growth Objective, the Commission <br />had "leeway in that regard, especially where the . 2025 horizon se- <br />lected in the growth objective remain[ed] relatively distant ...." <br />Thus, even if the residential growth in the Rural Tier was, in the <br />short term, in excess of the long term objective, the Commission <br />would not be compelled to deny all residential subdivision applica- <br />tions "until the desired equilibrium [was] attained." <br />12 <br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />60 <br />