Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2011 1 Volume 5 No. 5 Zoning Bulletin <br />ment is to function there must be some area in which representative <br />action will be final." <br />Findings —In Denying Variance Requests, Board <br />Summarizes Evidence In a Section Separate <br />From Its Findings <br />Applicant says denial should be overturned because <br />separation of findings from evidence prevented meaningful <br />judicial review <br />Citation: Critical Area Com'n for Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays <br />v. Moreland, LLC, 2011 WL 265852 (Md. 2011) <br />MARYLAND (02/28/11)—This case addressed the issue of "what <br />level of detail a Board of Appeals must employ in supporting its find- <br />ings with evidentiary references, in order to enable meaningful judicial <br />review." <br />The Background/Facts: Moreland, LLC ("Moreland") owned two <br />parcels on the north shore of Warehouse Creek in the county. The par- <br />cels were within the 100-foot buffer of a "critical area" of the Chesa- <br />peake Bay. Under the county's critical area protection program, certain <br />activities, including "new structure" construction and a specified maxi- <br />mum percentage of vegetation clearing, were prohibited within the <br />100-foot buffer of tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. The county code <br />did allow for variances in the critical area under certain conditions and <br />circumstances. <br />Moreland sought to construct a single-family home on each of its two <br />parcels. Moreland requested variances from the county's Office of Plan- <br />ning and Zoning. Moreland claimed that "without variance relief from <br />the prohibition on development within the buffer area and from tree <br />clearing limitations, [it] [could] not build any reasonably sized home on <br />these residentially zoned lots." <br />An administrative hearing officer denied Moreland's variance <br />requests. <br />Moreland appealed, and the county Board of Appeals (the "Board") <br />also denied the variance requests. In reaching its conclusion, the Board <br />provided a 14-page memorandum opinion after conducting three nights <br />of evidentiary hearings over a course of several months. Among other <br />things, the Board found that "the proposed construction, because of the <br />large area of impervious surface and the removal of significant amounts <br />of vegetation, would adversely affect the water quality of Warehouse <br />Creek." <br />8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />