Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 5 Moreland appealed. It contended that the Board's opinion denying the variance failed to provide sufficient detail and reasoning to enable mean- ingful judicial review. Moreland contended that "the central issue `[was] not whether there [was] substantial evidence in the record,' but rather, whether the [Board]'s opinion denying the variance requests [was] ame- nable to meaningful judicial review." Moreland said it was not because each of the Board's findings was not immediately followed by supportive and specific evidentiary references. The circuit court agreed with Moreland. It found that the separation of findings from the evidence in the Board's opinion prevented meaning- ful judicial review. It concluded that the Board failed to adequately sup- port in its written decision any of its adverse findings with references to specific evidence. The court remanded the matter back to the Board. The Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays and the South River Federation (collectively, the "Bays Commission") appealed. The Bays Commission countered that the Board's opinion adequately reflected that substantial evidence existed in support of its findings. The court of special appeals agreed with the circuit court. The Bays Commission again appealed. DECISION: Reversed, and matter remanded. The Court of Appeals of Maryland found that the Board's decision did permit meaningful judicial review and therefore should be upheld. The court held that the Board provided sufficient reasoning for its con- clusion that Moreland had failed to establish that its proposed develop- ment in the critical area would not adversely affect water quality. In so concluding, the court found that the Board's opinion "contained clear adverse findings, as well as summaries of substantial evidence sup- porting those findings." The court said that the Board did not, as More- land had argued, need to describe the evidentiary foundation for each of its findings immediately following each findings. All that was needed was "articulated evidence in support of conclusory finding[s]." The court explained that when a board of appeals "merely states con- clusions, without pointing to the evidentiary bases for those conclusions, such findings are not amenable to meaningful judicial review and a re- mand is warranted." However, "[i]n contrast, ... when the [b]oard of [a] ppeals refers to evidence in the record in support of its findings, mean- ingful judicial review is possible." The court determined that the present case fell within the latter cate- gory. This was because the Board, in its determination that the Moreland variances should be denied, "explicitly summarized evidence presented by several witnesses supporting its conclusions, albeit in a separate sec- tion, enabling meaningful judicial review." Because the board of appeals summarized substantial evidence in support of its conclusory findings, © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9