Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 201.5 I Volume 9 1 Issue 19 DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland concluded that the Town's Plan did comply with and satisfy the specific requirements of the Mary- land Land Use Articles ("LU") with regard to the Plan's substantive content. In so holding, the court rejected the Objector's arguments and held that, under Maryland law, a comprehensive plan is not required to include data to support the plan's goals, policies and recommendations. In support of its argument that a comprehensive plan was required to include data, the Objectors had pointed to LU § 3-112 and § 1-201. § 3- 112 sets out the matters that must be addressed in a comprehensive plan's municipal growth element. § 1-201 articulates the visions that a local plan- ning commission "shall implement . . . through the comprehensive plan[.]" Looking at the texts of that statute both in isolation particularly the definitions of the words "include" and "implement"—as well as the text in the context of the larger statutory scheme, the court determined thatit did not support the Objectors' contentions. The court found "[i]nclude" was defined as "[t]o contain as a part of something," and "[i]mplement" was defined as "to cavy into effect: to fulfill; to accomplish[.]" The court found that these dictionary definitions of "include" and "implement" failed to support the Objectors' contention that the statutes in question required a local planning commission to include detailed factual analyses as part of the plan. The court also found that the only provision in the LU addressing the means by which comprehensive plans should be prepared required only "careful and comprehensive study;" it did not mandate use of particular methodologies or analytical techniques. The court looked at another ap- plicable LU § —LU § 3-202(b)(1). Section 3-202(b)(1) required that the elements of a comprehensive play "may be expressed in words, graphics, or any other appropriate form." The court similarly found that this section fell short of a requirement that a plan must contain data -based analyses to support the plans' conclusion and recommendations. The court concluded that the relevant statutory provisions did not sup- port the Objectors' contentions that the LU required planning commission to use specific analytical techniques or that comprehensive plans, in their final and adopted forms, must contain discussions of data. Finally, the court noted that because the Town's planning commission and the Town council were acting, respectively, in quasi -legislative and legislative capacities, "neither body was obligated to create a record to provide a basis for its decision." "If the planning commission and the town council were not obligated to create an evidentiary record to support their decisions to adopt the Plan, then a fortiori, the text of the Plan itself need not contain such infoiination," concluded the court. See also: Lewis v. Gansler, 204 Md. App. 454, 42 A.3d 63 (2012). © 2015 Thomson Reuters 9