Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

March 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin The County's Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") held a hearing on the Special Exception application. At that hearing, several individuals (the "Opponents") appeared in opposition to the Special Exception application. The Opponents testified how the proposed Wawa would "cause traffic conges- tion, a harmful environmental impact, and a detrimental effect upon the eco- nomic stability of the neighborhood." OAH found that those "impacts are inherent in the operation of a gasoline/convenience store," and granted the Special Exception with conditions. The Opponents appealed. The County Board of Appeals (the "Board") af- firmed, granting the Special Exception. The Opponents again appealed. The circuit court affirmed the grant of the Special Exception. The Opponents further appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court. The Opponents once again appealed. On appeal, the Opponents argued that the Board erred when it failed to define the boundaries of the Wawa neighborhood. The Opponents maintained that an applicant for a special exception must establish the boundaries of the neighborhood, and that the Board's written decision had to satisfy Maryland law, requiring articulation of the facts found regarding the neighborhood's boundaries. The Opponents also argued that the Board erred when it assigned the burden of proof to the Op- ponents (as opposed to the Applicants) and then concluded that the Opponents' evidence failed to "rebut the presumption of validity of the Special Exception use in this case." The Court's Decision: Judgment of Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Maryland rejected the Opponents' arguments and affirmed the grant of the Special Exception to the Applicants. In its decision, the court first addressed the Opponents' argument that the Board was required to, and failed to, delineate the boundaries of the Wawa neighborhood before it could approve the Special Exception. The court acknowledged that the law required that the Board's task here, in evaluating the Special Exception application, was to "determine if there [was] or likely [would] be a detriment to the surrounding properties." Citing prior, related case law, the court explained that the description of those surrounding proper- ties —or neighborhood —impacted by a special exception use "must be precise enough to enable a party or appellate court to comprehend the area that the Board considered," The Objectors had contended that the Board, in evaluating special exception applications, had to precisely delineate the affected neighborhood and its boundaries, such as it is required to do in rezoning matters. The court rejected that argument. The court said that such a precise delineation of the neighborhood was not required with regard to special excep- tion evaluations because special exceptions, unlike rezoning matters, are presumed to be in the interest of the general welfare and enjoy a presumption of validity. The court reiterated that the area of the neighborhood affected by a special exception need only be described by the Board precisely enough so that a party or the court may comprehend the area. Here, reviewing the evi- dence in the record, as referenced in the Board's opinion, the court concluded 10 © 2017 Thomson Reuters