Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010

Home

June 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 11 Zoning Bulletin The Court's Decision: Judgment of circuit court reversed and remand- ed with directions. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland concluded that the Board; in determining whether the CBF and the MRA had standing to appeal the grant of variances to the Clickners, had applied an improper definition of "aggrievement." Looking at court precedence as to what is required in order to be "aggrieved" by an administrative decision, the court held that, in order to demonstrate standing to the Board, the CBF and the MRA had to fulfill a two-part test. They had to show: (1) that they had "a specific interest..."; that (2) would be affected "per- sonally and specially... in a way different from... the public generally" by the Clickners' proposed development. The court emphasized that property ownership —contrary to the circuit court's holding —was not a prerequisite to aggrievement, as a requirement for standing in this land use appeal. The court remanded the matter back to the Board to determine whether the CBF and the MRA had "a personal interest that would be affected personally and specifically in a way distinct from the general public." See also: Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 230 A.2d 289 (1967). See also: Jordan Towing, Inc. v. Hebbville Auto Repair, Inc., 369 Md. 439, 800 A.2d 768 (2002). Case Note: In remanding the matter back to the Board, the court directed the Board to determine whether: (1) the investments of time and money by the CBF and the MRA, as well as state per- mits and licenses specially obtained by the CBF and the MRA to perform and monitor their oyster and aquatic grass restoration projects, were sufficient to show they had a "specific interest" in the Clickners' development project; and (2) the CBF and the MRA "would be affected differently than the general public by the grant of the variances." 6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 166