Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin <br />March 10, 2012 ' Volume 61 No. 5 <br />The Opponents appealed. Again, among other things, the Opponents <br />contended that the Board violated due process and open meetings require- <br />ments by conducting a meeting (i.e., the site visit) closed to some members <br />of the public at which the merits of the case were discussed, not made a <br />part of the record, but nevertheless were relied upon by the Board. <br />DECISION: Reversed, and matter remanded. <br />The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland first determined that the <br />Opponents' objections to the site visit were preserved for the court's re- <br />view. Next, the court agreed with the Opponents that, in conducting the <br />site visit, the Board violated the State's Open Meetings statute and the <br />Board's open meetings rule. <br />In so holding, the Court noted that both Rule III of the Board's Rule <br />and the State Open Meetings Law required all meetings of a board of <br />appeals be open to the public. In the court's view, here, the Board's site <br />visit was a "meeting," even though it occurred in an "unconventional <br />venue" and on private property. Accordingly, because this "meeting" <br />was not completely open to the public, the court determined that it vio- <br />lated the open meeting requirements of the laws. <br />The court further held that the Board's failure to disclose information <br />obtained during the site visit and to allow the Opponents to challenge <br />evidence gathered from the site visit though cross-examination or other <br />means constituted a denial of due process. <br />See also: Heath v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 187 Md. 296, <br />49 A.2d 799 (1946). <br />See also: Powell v. Calvert County, 137 Md. App. 425, 768 A.2d 750 <br />(2001), judgment rev'd, 368 Md. 400, 795 A.2d 96 (2002). <br />Substantive Due Process —Flood Control <br />Regulations Restrict Construction in Floodway <br />Landowner argues regulations violate her substantive due <br />process <br />Citation: Cradduck v. Yakima County, 2012 WL 313995 (Wash. Ct. <br />App. Div. 3 2012) <br />WASHINGTON (02/02/12)—This case addressed the issue of wheth- <br />er flood control regulations restricting construction in a floodway vio- <br />lated a landowner's substantive due process rights. <br />The Background/Facts: Elizabeth Cradduck ("Cradduck") owned <br />Sun -Tides Mobile Home Park (the "Park") in Yakima County (the <br />"County"). In October 2009, a mobile home on lot 17 in the Park was <br />abandoned and in disrepair. Cradduck had it destroyed. Thereafter, a <br />construction contractor applied to the County for a construction permit <br />© 2012 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />