Case Title: Anne Arundel County v. 808 Bestgate Realty, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 38/21

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2022-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. 808 Bestgate Realty, LLC, No. 38, September Term, 
2021, Opinion by Booth, J. 
 
 
INTERPRETATION OF LOCAL CODE—ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF 
BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION 
 
Under the plain language of Anne Arundel County Code (“Code”) § 17-11-207(c), a 
developer was entitled to receive transportation impact fee credits for improvements made 
to a county road that went “over and above the adequate road facilities requirements” 
required by the Code.  It is undisputed that the road improvements exceeded the 
requirements of the County’s adequate road facilities provisions set forth in § 17-5-401 of 
the Code and were approved by the County’s Engineer Administrator.  Under the plain 
language of the Code, the developer was entitled to receive transportation impact fee 
credits and the County Board of Appeals of Anne Arundel County (“Board”) erred in its 
interpretation of the Code.   
 
REMAND UNDER MARYLAND RULE 8-131(a)—WHERE PARTIES HAVE 
STIPULATED THAT THE ISSUE IS UNDISPUTED 
 
After the Court of Special Appeals raised an issue pertaining to the interpretation of the 
Code sua sponte and ordered a remand to the Board for consideration of the same, the 
parties stipulated that the code provision raised by the intermediate appellate court does 
not apply to the facts of this case.  Given the County’s concession that the code provision 
raised by the intermediate appellate court does not apply and that it has joined the 
developer’s requested relief on that issue, the Court of Appeals determined that there was 
no reason for a remand to the Board on that issue.   
 
 
 
 
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County 
Case No.:  C-02-CV-18-002979 
Argued: February 3, 2022 
   
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 38 
September Term, 2021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND 
v. 
808 BESTGATE REALTY, LLC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Getty, C.J. 
*McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
Battaglia, Lynne A.,  
  (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), 
 
JJ. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Opinion by Booth, J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Filed: July 7, 2022 
 
*Getty, C.J. and McDonald, J., now Senior 
Judges, participated in the hearing and conference 
of this case while active members of this Court.  
After being recalled pursuant to Maryland 
Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, they also 
participated in the decision and adoption of this 
opinion. 
 
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal 
Materials Act 
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 
 
 
 
 
 
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk 
2022-07-07 16:01-04:00
In this case, we must determine whether the County Board of Appeals of Anne 
Arundel County (“Board”) erred when it denied a request by a developer, 808 Bestgate 
Realty, LLC’s (“Bestgate”), for transportation impact fee credits in connection with certain 
road improvements that it made to a county road as part of a redevelopment project.  Under 
the Anne Arundel County Code, § 17-11-207(c),1 when transportation improvements are 
constructed in connection with a development project that provide “transportation capacity 
over and above the adequate road facilities requirements” required by § 17-5-401 of the  
Code, then “[t]ransportation impact fee credits shall be allowed[.]”  There is no dispute that 
Bestgate proposed to construct improvements to Bestgate Road, which were approved by the 
County’s Engineer Administrator, and that the improvements provided transportation 
capacity that was “over and above” the requirements of the County’s adequate public 
facilities (“APF”) standards that are applicable to roads.  However, in a 4-3 decision, the 
Board determined that Bestgate was not entitled to transportation impact fee credits under its 
interpretation of § 17-11-207.   
 
After the Board denied Bestgate’s request for transportation impact fee credits, 
Bestgate appealed the decision to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.  The circuit 
court reversed the Board’s decision.  Anne Arundel County (the “County”) filed an appeal 
to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court in part, and reversed it in 
part.  The intermediate appellate court determined that, under the plain language of § 17-11-
 
1 All references to the Anne Arundel County Code are references to Article 17.  For 
simplicity’s sake, we shall sometimes refer to the provisions of Article 17 only by their 
Section reference.   
2 
 
207(c), the Board erred in its interpretation.  Anne Arundel County v. 808 Bestgate Realty, 
Inc., No. 1156, 2021 WL 1985434 (May 18, 2021) (“808 Bestgate”).  However, the Court 
of Special Appeals remanded the case to the Board for further findings on an issue that it 
raised sua sponte—specifically, whether the improvements to Bestgate Road were “site-
related transportation improvements” under the Code, which would render them ineligible 
for transportation impact fee credits.  Because both parties agree that the road improvements 
are not “site-related improvements” under the provisions of the Code, they filed a joint 
motion for reconsideration of that issue, which the Court of Special Appeals denied. 
The County and Bestgate each filed a petition for writ of certiorari to this Court, 
which we granted.  We granted the County’s petition to consider the following question, 
which we have rephrased as follows:  
Did the Board of Appeals err in denying Bestgate’s application for 
transportation impact fee credits under the applicable language of the Anne 
Arundel County Code?2  
 
We granted Bestgate’s petition to consider the following question, which we have 
rephrased as follows:3 
 
2 The County’s petition for writ of certiorari phrased the question as follows:  
 
Is CSA’s interpretation of § 17-11-207 of the Anne Arundel County Code in 
conflict with the County Charter and the County budget process as it relates 
to the funding of public improvements?  
 
3 Bestgate’s petition for writ of certiorari phrased the question as follows:  
 
Did the Court of Special Appeals abuse its discretion under Maryland Rule 
8-131(a) in requiring remand on an issue not raised or briefed by the parties 
nor mentioned in the agency order under appeal, and not in dispute? 
3 
 
Given that both parties agree that the improvements to Bestgate Road are not 
“site-related improvements” as defined by the Code, and the County agrees 
that a remand to the Board is unnecessary for a determination of that issue, 
is a remand warranted? 
 
 
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Court of Special Appeals’ decision as 
to the first question, and as to the second question, we reverse the Court of Special Appeals’ 
decision to remand the case to the Board to consider whether the improvements are “site-
related” given the County’s concession on that issue.   
I. 
Factual Background and Procedural History  
A. 
The Redevelopment Project  
Bestgate redeveloped a 9.4-acre parcel located at 808–810 Bestgate Road in 
Annapolis.  The redevelopment project included an addition to an existing veterinary clinic 
and the construction of a new four-story medical office building with an associated parking 
lot (“the Project”), which is accessible from Bestgate Road—a county road.  Prior to the 
issuance of a building permit, Bestgate paid transportation impact fees to the County in the 
amount of $199,756 for the veterinary clinic and $590,775 for the medical office. 
As part of the Project, Bestgate hired a traffic engineer, Traffic Concepts, Inc. 
(“Traffic Concepts”).  Traffic Concepts performed a traffic impact study to determine if 
the Project complied with the County’s APF road requirements, which mandate that road 
intersections at a development site will operate at a minimum “D” level of service and that 
the road sections will have a rating of 70 or higher.  If a traffic impact study reveals that a 
development project will not meet these requirements, the County may mandate that the 
4 
 
developer construct mitigation improvements to bring the transportation facilities up to the 
standards in the Code. 
The Project was initially designed with a right-in/right-out intersection from 
Bestgate Road.4  The traffic impact study revealed that after development of the Project, 
with the right-in/right-out road network, the County road intersections would continue to 
operate at an acceptable level of service, and the road ratings would remain adequate.  
Accordingly, the traffic impact study concluded that no mitigation would be needed to 
satisfy the County’s APF road requirements.  Based upon these conclusions, the County 
approved the Project with the right-in/right-out intersection, without requiring any 
mitigation.  
Even though mitigation was not required to satisfy the APF road requirements, 
Traffic Concepts recommended the construction of an off-site median break and traffic 
signal on Bestgate Road across from the entrance to the Project.  In a May 2, 2017 letter to 
Larry Tom at the Office of Planning and Zoning, Kenneth Schmid, a Vice President of 
Traffic Concepts, explained that “[i]f the site were to retain the existing right-in/right-out 
access, vehicles wishing to enter the site from eastbound Bestgate Road would be forced 
to make a U-turn at the Medical Parkway intersection in order to enter the development,” 
 
4 The traffic impact study concluded that a right-in/right-out road access from 
Bestgate Road would require “left turn inbound and left turn outbound trips to be U-turns 
at the upstream and downstream intersections at Gate Drive and Severn Grove 
Road/Medical Parkway.”  In other words, for example, if a driver was approaching the 
development site traveling eastbound, the driver would have to make a U-turn at the Severn 
Grove Road/Medical Parkway intersection with Bestgate Road and then turn right into the 
Project site.  
5 
 
which would increase the “morning peak hour critical lane volume” at that intersection.  
With the median break and traffic signal, however, the critical lane volume would be 
reduced, which would both increase capacity and improve safety by eliminating the 
weaving requirement to attempt a U-turn movement.5   
In that letter, Mr. Schmid requested approval of transportation impact fee credits for 
the “total cost of design and installation of the median break and traffic signal[,]” which 
was estimated to be $554,697.98.  David Braun, the County’s Engineer Administrator for 
the County’s Department of Public Works, supervised the review of the traffic impact study 
and approved the plans and construction details for the median break and traffic signal on 
Bestgate Road as recommended by Traffic Concepts.6   
Although the County’s Engineer Administrator approved the Bestgate Road 
improvements, in a letter dated October 26, 2017, the County’s Planning and Zoning 
Officer, Philip Hager, denied the request for transportation impact fee credits, on the basis 
 
5 Specifically, in the May 2, 2017 letter from Mr. Schmid to the Planning and Zoning 
Officer, Bestgate explained how the additional improvements would provide additional 
safety and capacity beyond the APF requirements by stating the following:  
 
In addition to increasing capacity, the median break and traffic signal will 
improve safety over the existing right-in/right-out condition because it will 
eliminate the weaving movement required to attempt a U-turn movement.  
The distance between the access and the U-turn movement is less than 400-
ft in both directions.  The U-turn movement is tight for larger cars, vans, and 
pick-up trucks.  Some of these vehicles need to make multiple maneuvers to 
complete the U-turn movement.  During peak times this could create safety 
issues. 
 
6 Bestgate has since completed the Project and constructed the additional off-site 
improvements to Bestgate Road as recommended by Traffic Concepts and approved by the 
County.   
6 
 
that: (1) there was no benefit to the County since the intersection was already operating at 
an “A” level; (2) the additional improvements were not associated with any traffic 
mitigation required by the County to satisfy the APF road requirements; (3) there were no 
capital improvement plan projects in the corridor associated with the Project; and (4) there 
were no deficiencies in the traffic impact study area.  
Bestgate appealed to the Board, which reviewed the matter de novo.  
B. 
The Board Proceedings  
The Board heard testimony on the appeal on April 12 and May 22, 2018.  Mr. Braun 
testified that he reviewed the traffic impact study and agreed that the Bestgate Road 
improvements would provide additional safety measures and capacity to the County’s road 
network.  Bestgate also introduced into evidence a written memorandum from Mr. Braun 
to the Office of Planning and Zoning which stated that “[t]he benefit to the County, as 
outlined in the proposal, is providing additional capacity at the Bestgate/Severn Grove 
Road intersection and improving safety due to the reduction in the number of U-turns.”   
Mr. Schmid, who was qualified as an expert traffic engineer, testified that the 
proposed improvements would eliminate both potential and existing U-turns and confirmed 
that the development would add to the congestion at the intersection of Severn Grove Road 
and Bestgate Road where U-turns are being made by people going to the existing veterinary 
clinic:  
And then we would be adding more left turns and U-turns onto that 
intersection by our site.  So when we eliminate all those potential U-turns 
and the existing U-turns, we provide extra capacity at the intersection of 
Severn Grove Road and Bestgate Road.  Now, it’s acceptable capacity today, 
but we are providing additional capacity to that intersection by diverting that 
7 
 
traffic away.  We’re also providing extra capacity to the unsignalized U-turn 
movement up at Gate Drive, which was the other U-turn exit.  And that 
wasn’t a studied intersection in our analysis, but by not pushing traffic up 
there and making U-turns, you’re providing capacity for that intersection.   
 
In addition to explaining the benefits that the additional signal would provide to the 
Bestgate Road corridor generally, Mr. Schmid also described examples of similar road 
improvement projects in which he had been involved where the County granted 
transportation impact fee credits in similar situations.7  Specifically, Mr. Schmid testified 
that the County had previously approved traffic impact fee credits for BWI Technology 
Park III which, like Bestgate, passed the APF road test without the requirement for any 
 
7 Impact fee credit agreements applicable to other development projects were 
admitted into evidence before the Board.  The agreements reflected prior instances in which 
the County granted transportation impact fee credits for off-site improvements that 
provided additional transportation capacity.   
 
For example, the transportation impact fee agreement between the County and Patel 
Associates, LLC states that the developer was eligible for transportation impact fee credits 
for those “[i]mprovements meeting the same needs as the transportation impact fees” by 
“providing expanded capacity over and above the requirements of Article 17, Title 11 of 
the Code.”  The eligible improvements were limited to “off-site” improvements providing 
“new road capacity and safety.”  The agreement provides for an accounting when the 
application for a building permit is made.   
 
An agreement between the County and Creekstone Village contains similar 
language regarding “off-site improvements,” stating that 100% of the off-site 
improvements providing “new road capacity” be eligible for credits and defining “the 
nature and amount” of the credits.  The agreement requires that the developer maintain an 
accounting of the cumulative credits and provide the County with statements of the same 
upon request of the County at no more than quarterly intervals.  
 
In the BWI Technology Phase III agreement, it was agreed that “100% of the total 
improvement [c]osts are attributable to off-site transportation improvements that provide 
new road capacity over and above the adequate road facilities requirements.”  It further 
provided that all credits had to be redeemed within 12 years.  
8 
 
mitigation.  Mr. Schmid noted that the developer had received traffic impact fee credits for 
100% of the improvements.  Mr. Schmid testified that, in the case of the Creekstone Village 
Residential development on Jumpers Hole Road, the only required mitigation to pass the 
APF road requirements was trimming of vegetation to improve sight lines.  Mr. Schmid 
testified that the developer had also received transportation impact fee credits for 100% of 
the improvements.  In Mr. Schmid’s view, the Planning and Zoning Officer’s denial of the 
credits requested by Bestgate was inconsistent with the County’s approvals of credits on 
other projects where minimal or no mitigation was required to comply with the APF road 
requirements. 
The County’s Planning and Zoning Officer, Mr. Hager, testified regarding his 
October 26, 2017 letter responding to Bestgate’s request for impact fee credits:  
I believe the letter succinctly sets forth the reasons why the Office of 
Planning and Zoning denied the applicant’s request in this particular 
instance.  First of all, there does not appear to be any benefit to the county, 
only to the applicant.  The county did not request the median break.  They 
did not request the construction of the traffic control device.  No inadequacies 
are being remedied in this particular case.  The work that was performed by 
the applicant at this site was not part of something that was required by the 
adequacy of facilities requirements.  In addition, there is no other project in 
the area that’s been identified in any of our planning or transportation related 
studies, whether they be functional master plans, needs assessments or 
otherwise that identify a problem with regard[] to the need to actually 
construct this type of project, to cure some type of an existing deficiency.  So 
it was based upon those factors that it was not found to be any reasonable 
9 
 
use, reasonable benefit to the taxpayers to have their funds utilized in this 
manner.   
 
In cross-examination, Mr. Hager was asked about the Board’s grant of 
transportation impact fee credits to Walmart in a previous case:8 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: So those were improvements to a state road.  So 
that wasn’t part of a required traffic mitigation to satisfy the county 
standards, correct? 
 
[Mr. Hager]: That was a state road. 
 
* 
* 
* 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: Okay.  Now, I will refer back to the Walmart 
decision in which this Board referred to section 17.11.207[(]c[)]; are 
you familiar with that section of the Code? 
 
[Mr. Hager]: Yes. 
 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: And doesn’t that state, transportation impact fee 
credits shall be allowed for transportation improvements providing 
transportation capacity over and above the adequate road facility 
requirements for a development project as set forth in this Code? 
 
[Mr. Hager]: I’m reading it here now as you’re stating it.  I’ve read 
this previously.  What is your question, counsel? 
 
 
8 The Board’s decision in Board Case No. BA2414A was presented to the Board as 
part of the record in this case.  Although it was not admitted as an exhibit, counsel for 
Bestgate asked that the Board take judicial notice of its previous decision.  In that case, 
Walmart appealed a decision of the Planning and Zoning Officer denying impact fee 
credits.  Walmart was developing a retail store to replace and enlarge another development 
that had access to a state road and a county road.  The State required improvements to the 
state road, including related utility and traffic signal modifications.  In that case, Walmart 
argued that the state road improvements were not required to meet the County’s APF road 
requirements, and therefore, it was entitled to transportation impact fee credits for the cost 
of those improvements.  The Board—in a 4-member decision, with 3 other members not 
participating—found the language of § 17-11-207(c) “clear, unambiguous, and mandatory” 
and the improvements to the state road to be “over and above” the APF road requirements.  
The language of § 17-11-207(c) has remained the same since that decision.  
10 
 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: Well, the determination was the word “shall” 
would be an obligation, right, to grant credits?  Would you interpret 
as a Planning and Zoning Officer, if you are reading a Code section 
that you “shall,” that would be mandatory as opposed to 
discretionary? 
 
* 
* 
* 
[Mr. Hager]: Yes.  And I would interpret that that way.  Except there 
is a couple of points in that passage that bear further scrutiny in terms 
of when that “shall” shall actually apply. 
 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: Right.  I understand.  But the period is that -- 
and this is a section that was cited by this Board in the Walmart case, 
is that that language is clear, and unambiguous, and mandatory; you 
would agree with that? 
 
[Mr. Hager]: Yes.  In spite of that, we still interpret it differently, 
counsel. 
 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: Okay.  Alright.  So it states that you are 
providing transportation capacity over and above adequate road 
facility requirements, that would be an enhancement to the road 
system that would benefit the public? 
 
[Mr. Hager]: I think it’s important to read item “A” above that which 
also talks about projects that may be allowed.  And it’s, it certainly 
seems clear to me that there has to be a public benefit to when that 
“shall” shall be applied.  
 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: Okay.  And so would it be your interpretation 
that if your staff said that an improvement would increase capacity 
and safety would you agree then that impact fee credits would be 
justified in a situation because it’s increasing capacity on the road 
system? 
 
[Mr. Hager]: No, sir.  I disagree. 
 
[Bestgate’s Counsel]: You disagree even if your own staff would 
advise you as to that, an improvement was going to increase capacity? 
 
[Mr. Hager]: There has to be an inherent public benefit to the 
utilization of the funds.   
11 
 
 
The Board, in a 4-3 decision, denied Bestgate’s request for transportation impact 
fee credits based on its interpretation of § 17-11-207(c).  Under the Board’s interpretation, 
in order to receive the transportation credits, the developer must satisfy “two elements”: 
First, the proposed improvements must increase transportation capacity over 
and above the APF requirements.  Second, the County must allow the credits 
and memorialize the same in a written agreement.  Pursuant to Section 17-
11-207(c), impact fee credits are mandated when capacity is provided over 
and above the adequate road facilities requirements.  APF requirements refer 
to mandated mitigation when new development cannot pass APF tests, as a 
means of adding traffic capacity.  §§ 17-5-401(a)(3) and 17-5-901(h).  If APF 
mitigation is not required, independent and additional improvements are not 
considered “above and beyond” the APF requirements.  In this instance, all 
parties agree that the proposed development passed APF tests, and mitigation 
is not required; thus, there are no APF requirements to be mitigated.  The 
proposed improvements are not “above and beyond” the APF requirements, 
and the Petitioner is not eligible for impact fee credits.   
 
The Board’s dissenting members found that the plain language of the Code was 
“clear and unambiguous” and that nothing in § 17-11-207(c) indicated that “mitigation 
must be a prerequisite to receive impact fee credits.”  The dissenting members of the Board 
stated that § 17-11-207(c): 
mandates that a “[t]ransportation impact fee credit shall be allowed for 
transportation improvements providing transportation capacity over and 
above the [APF] requirements for a development project . . .” (emphasis 
added).  This section does not mandate that mitigation must be a prerequisite 
to receiving impact fee credits.  Mr. Schmid testified regarding the increased 
benefit to all citizens of the County, including reduced U-turns and weaving 
movements.  The proposed road improvements adhere to Section 17-11-202 
of the Code, which promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the 
residents of the County.  The road improvements are over and above the APF 
requirements.  The County is mandated to allow the transportation impact 
fee credits.  Thus, we would grant the Petitioner’s request for the impact fee 
credits.  
 
12 
 
Bestgate petitioned for judicial review of the Board’s decision in the Circuit Court 
for Anne Arundel County. 
C. 
The Circuit Court’s Decision   
The circuit court reversed the decision of the Board, concluding that the plain 
language of § 17-11-207(c) does not condition the issuance of transportation impact fee 
credits upon the need for mitigation arising from a developer failing to satisfy the APF road 
test.  The circuit court determined that the applicable language in the Code required the 
County to issue the transportation impact fee credits because Bestgate increased traffic 
capacity and safety beyond the APF road requirements.  The circuit court also determined 
that the issuance of the transportation impact fee credits was not dependent upon the 
County and Bestgate reaching a written agreement on the same, concluding that the 
agreement is simply a memorialization of the credits to which the developer is entitled to 
receive under the Code.  The County appealed the circuit court’s decision to the Court of 
Special Appeals.  
D. 
The Court of Special Appeals’ Decision  
In the unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s 
interpretation of the County Code—that under the plain language of § 17-11-207(c), the 
issuance of the transportation credits was mandatory where non-site related improvements 
exceeded the APF road requirements, without regard to whether the developer had been 
required to construct mitigation improvements.  See 808 Bestgate Realty, No. 1156, 2021 
WL 1985434.  The Court of Special Appeals also held that the County did not have 
discretionary authority to refuse to enter into a transportation fee credit agreement where 
13 
 
the eligible improvements went “above and beyond the APF requirements” of the Code.  
The Court of Special Appeals, however, remanded the case to the Board on an issue not 
raised during prior proceedings between the parties.  Specifically, the intermediate 
appellate court remanded the case for the Board to determine whether the improvements to 
Bestgate Road would be considered “site-related” improvements, and therefore ineligible 
for consideration of transportation impact fee credits under the Code.  
The parties filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Special 
Appeals on the limited issue pertaining to that court’s decision to remand the case to the 
Board for a determination whether the improvements would be considered “site-related.”  
In the Motion for Reconsideration, the parties stipulated that the Bestgate Road 
improvements were not “site-related” under the Code.  The Court of Special Appeals 
denied the motion, after which both parties filed petitions for writs of certiorari in this 
Court.   
II. 
Discussion  
A. 
Standard of Review  
“When this or any appellate court reviews the final decision of an administrative 
agency such as the [Board of Appeals], the court looks through the circuit court’s and 
intermediate appellate court’s decisions, although applying the same standards of review, 
and evaluates the decision of the agency.”  People’s Council for Baltimore Cty. v. Surina, 
400 Md. 662, 681 (2007) (citations omitted).  
14 
 
There are two general standards of review for administrative agency decisions.  
With regard to findings of fact, “we affirm an agency’s decision if there is substantial 
evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions.”  
Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach, 448 Md. 112, 124 (2016) (internal citations 
omitted).  We review the agency’s decision in the light most favorable to it, and we presume 
it to be valid.  Id.  When reviewing conclusions of law, however, no such deference is given 
to the agency’s conclusion.  Id.; Belvoir Farms Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 
259, 267 (1999).  When we are asked to consider a statute or an ordinance that an agency 
is charged with administering, “[a]lthough we often will give considerable weight to the 
agency’s experience in interpreting a statute that it administers, it is within our prerogative 
to determine whether an agency’s conclusions of law are correct, and to remedy the 
situation if found to be wrong.”  John A. v. Board of Ed. for Howard Cty., 400 Md. 363, 
382 (2007) (internal citations omitted); see also Schwartz v. Maryland Dept. of Nat. Res., 
385 Md. 534, 554 (2005) (“With respect to an agency’s conclusions of law, we have often 
stated that a court reviews de novo for correctness.  We frequently give weight to an 
agency’s experience in interpretation of a statute that it administers, but it is always within 
our prerogative to determine whether an agency’s conclusions of law are correct, and to 
remedy them if wrong.”) (internal citations omitted).   
B. 
Principles of Statutory Interpretation   
At issue in this case is whether the Board erred in its interpretation of § 17-11-
207(c).  When we interpret a local ordinance, we apply the same canons of construction to 
the local ordinance as we apply to the interpretation of state statutes.  See Howard Rsch. 
15 
 
and Dev. Corp. v. Concerned Citizens for Columbia Concept, 297 Md. 357, 364 (1983) 
(“A charter or an ordinance generally is read and construed in the same manner as a 
statute.”).  “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the 
real and actual intent of the Legislature.”  Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 274 (2010).  
As we have explained, “we look first to the [plain] language of the statute, giving it its 
natural and ordinary meaning” to determine the purpose of the legislative body which 
enacted it.  75-80 Properties, LLC. v. Rale, Inc., 470 Md. 598, 623 (2020).  We construe 
the statute “as a whole so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, 
superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.”  Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14, 25–26 
(2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).  Generally, we “will not divine a 
legislative intention contrary to the plain language of a statute or judicially insert language 
to impose exceptions, limitations or restrictions not set forth by the legislature.”  Langston 
v. Langston, 366 Md. 490, 515 (2001) (cleaned up).  “We neither add nor delete language 
so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, 
and we do not construe a statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend 
its application.”  Lockshin, 412 Md. at 275 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).  
“We presume that the Legislature intends its enactments to operate together as a consistent 
and harmonious body of law, and, thus, we seek to reconcile and harmonize the parts of a 
statute, to the extent possible consistent with the statute’s object and scope.”  Lockshin, 
412 Md. at 276.  If the language is clear and unambiguous, “we need not look beyond the 
16 
 
statute’s provisions and our analysis ends.”  Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156, 178 (2011) 
(quoting Evans v. State, 420 Md. 391, 400 (2011)).  
Before we turn to the parties’ conflicting interpretations of § 17-11-207, it is helpful 
to provide an overview of the applicable provisions of the Code related to development 
impact fees, impact fee credits, and the adequate public facilities provisions related to road 
requirements.  
C. 
County Code Provisions Establishing Development Impact Fees, 
Development Impact Fee Credits, and APF Requirements for Roads  
 
1. Development Impact Fees  
In order to promote “the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the 
County,” all new development projects are subject to Article 17, Title 11, Subtitle 2 of the 
Anne Arundel County Code. § 17-11-202.9  Under this article, a developer is required to 
pay “its proportionate fair share of the costs for land, capital facilities, and other expenses 
 
 
9 Section 17-11-202 provides:  
 
This title is adopted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and 
general welfare of the residents of the County by:  
 
(1) 
requiring all new development to pay its proportionate fair share of 
the costs for land, capital facilities, and other expenses necessary to 
accommodate development impacts on public school, transportation, 
and public safety facilities; 
 
(2) 
complementing the provisions of Title 5 by requiring that all new 
development pay its share of costs for reasonably attributable impacts; 
and  
 
(3) 
helping to implement the General Development Plan to help ensure 
that adequate public facilities for schools, transportation, and public 
safety are available in a timely and well planned manner.   
17 
 
necessary to accommodate development impacts on public school, transportation, and 
public safety facilities[.]” § 17-11-202(1).  To ensure that a developer pays its fair share of 
impacts on County public facilities, the County has established “development impact fees,” 
which are paid by “[a]ny person who improves real property and thereby causes an impact 
upon public schools, transportation, or public safety facilities[.]”  § 17-11-203(a).  The 
Code establishes a “fee schedule,” which is based upon the square footage of the 
development project. § 17-11-204.  Before a building permit can be issued for the 
development activity, the fees must be paid by the developer to the Department of 
Inspections and Permits.  § 17-11-206.  The funds collected from development impact fees 
must be used by the County “solely for capital improvements for expansion of the capacity 
of public schools, roads, and public safety facilities[.]”  § 17-11-209(a).  
2. Development Impact Fee Credits 
In addition to establishing development impact fees, the Code also permits a 
developer to receive a monetary credit in certain circumstances to offset the amount owed 
in development impact fees.  Section 17-11-207(a) applies to impact fee credits generally 
and provides:  
When allowed.  Any conveyance of land or construction received and 
accepted by the County or the County Board of Education from a developer, 
including construction of a contract school by a developer or a developer’s 
agent pursuant to an agreement with the Board of Education, may be credited 
against the development impact fee due if the conveyance or construction 
meets the same needs as the development impact fee in providing expanded 
capacity over and above the requirements of this article.  If the developer 
wishes to receive credit against the amount of the development impact fee 
due for such conveyance or construction, the developer shall enter into a 
written Impact Fee Credit Agreement with the County prior to such 
conveyance or construction.  The Impact Fee Credit Agreement shall provide 
18 
 
for establishment of credits and the procedure and time allowed for 
redemption of such credits.  Development impact fee credits shall be claimed 
and applied at the time development impact fees are required to be paid.   
In contrast to the provisions of subsection (a) that address impact fees generally, Section 
17-11-207(c) specifically applies to transportation impact fee credits:  
Transportation impact fee credits.  Transportation impact fee credits shall 
be allowed for transportation improvements providing transportation 
capacity over and above the adequate road facilities requirements for a 
development project set forth in this article.  The development providing the 
capital improvements shall be allowed transportation impact fee credits in 
the amount provided in the Transportation Impact Fee Credit Agreement.  
Credit may not be given for site-related transportation improvements.  
 
(Emphasis added).  
3. Adequate Road Facilities Requirements 
The County’s APF requirements are set forth in Article 17, Title 5 of the Anne 
Arundel County Code.10  The APF requirements that apply to road facilities are set forth 
in § 17-5-401(a).  That section sets forth three ways that a development can satisfy the APF 
road requirements:  
(a) 
Generally.  Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), and in § 17-
6-504(9), a development passes the test for adequate road facilities if 
 
10 Section 17-5-101 establishes the purposes of the Adequate Public Facilities Title, 
Title 5 of the Anne Arundel County Code, stating:  
 
The purpose of this title is to provide a growth management process that will 
enable the County to provide adequate public schools, roads, and other 
infrastructure facilities in a timely manner and achieve General Development 
Plan growth objectives.  The process is designed to direct growth to areas 
where adequate public infrastructure exists or will exist.  Another purpose of 
this title is to provide a predictable planning environment for the provision 
of adequate fire, road, school, sewerage, storm drain, and water facilities by 
requiring certain developments to pass certain tests as a condition of 
subdivision or site development.   
19 
 
in the scheduled completion year of the development it creates 50 or 
fewer daily trips or if:  
 
(1) 
the road facilities in the impact area of the proposed 
development will operate at or above the minimum of ‘D’ level 
of service after including the traffic generated by the 
development; and 
 
(2) 
road facilities in the impact area of the proposed development 
will have an adequacy rating of not less than 70 as defined by 
the Anne Arundel County road rating program or, if not rated 
by the Anne Arundel County road rating program, have been 
found by the County to be adequate with respect to road 
capacity, alignment, sight distance, structural condition, 
design, and lane width …; or  
 
(3) 
the developer has an approved mitigation plan under §§ 17-5-
901 et seq.  
 
§ 17-5-401(a) (emphasis added).  In other words, if the development creates more than 50 
trips per day and cannot satisfy the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the developer 
may pass the APF road requirements by implementing an approved mitigation plan under 
subsection (3).   
D. 
Parties’ Contentions  
The County argues that, in order to receive transportation impact fee credits under 
§ 17-11-207(c), the proposed development must first fail to satisfy the APF road test under 
§ 17-5-401(a)(1) and (2), thereby requiring that the developer undertake mitigation 
approved by the County under subsection (3).  According to the County, if and only if a 
mitigation plan is required, and the mitigation improvements go “over and above” the 
necessary to satisfy the APF road requirements, the developer is then eligible for 
transportation impact fee credits.  The County argues that, under a contrary interpretation 
20 
 
of the applicable code provisions, a developer would be entitled to receive transportation 
impact fee credits for improvements that are neither necessary nor approved by the County.  
The County’s position is that permitting a developer to receive transportation impact fee 
credits where no mitigation is required would lead to an “illogical result” because the 
developer—not the County—would be directing the County’s transportation priorities and 
the expenditure of funds on capital improvement projects.   
In addition, the County asserts that under § 17-11-207(a), impact fee credits may 
only be given when the County is willing to enter into a transportation fee credit agreement.  
The County asserts that it has discretionary authority to enter into a transportation fee credit 
agreement.  Here, the County states that it is unwilling to enter into such an agreement 
because it contends that the road improvements do not provide a general benefit to the 
public. 
Bestgate asserts that there is nothing in the plain language of § 17-11-207(c) that 
conditions the availability of transportation impact fee credits upon the development failing 
the APF road requirements thereby triggering mitigation improvements.  Bestgate argues 
that the plain language of the code section is clear—if the transportation improvements go 
“over and above” those required by the adequate public road facilities requirements, then 
the County shall give transportation impact fee credits.  Bestgate points out that its plain 
language interpretation is supported by the County’s approval of transportation impact fee 
credits on similar projects that did not involve the construction of mitigation improvements 
to satisfy the APF road requirements.  Bestgate further contends that its interpretation does 
not place the developer in a decision-making role vis-à-vis County capital road 
21 
 
improvement projects, noting that the County’s Engineer Administrator reviewed and 
approved the off-site improvements to Bestgate Road.  We agree with Bestgate.   
E. 
Bestgate is Entitled to Transportation Impact Fee Credits under § 17-11-
207(c) 
First, it is undisputed that Bestgate’s traffic impact study reflected that the Project 
would satisfy the APF road requirements without the need for a mitigation plan.  
Specifically, the traffic impact study demonstrated that, once the Project was completed, 
Bestgate Road would continue to operate at an “A” level of service.  Although no 
mitigation plan was required, Bestgate’s traffic engineer recommended off-site 
improvements to Bestgate Road, which would improve traffic conditions along the 
Bestgate Road corridor generally by reducing U-turns.  The County’s Engineer 
Administrator, Mr. Braun, agreed and approved the off-site improvements to Bestgate 
Road.  Mr. Braun testified that he supervised the review of the traffic impact study and 
determined that the proposed improvements would provide additional road capacity and 
would improve safety.  He advised the County’s Planning and Zoning Development 
Division that “[t]he benefit to the County, as outlined in the proposal, is providing 
additional capacity at the Bestgate/Severn Grove Road intersection and improving safety 
due to the reduction in the number of U-turns.”  He approved the plans and construction 
details for the improvements to the county road.   
Under the plain language of the Code, “[t]ransportation impact fee credits shall be 
allowed for transportation improvements providing transportation capacity over and above 
the adequate road facilities requirements[.]”  § 17-11-207(c) (emphasis added).  We have 
22 
 
repeatedly held that the word “shall” is mandatory.  See 75-80 Properties, 470 Md. at 631 
(“The term ‘shall’ connotes that an action is mandatory, not subject to discretion or 
satisfaction of further conditions.”); In re Najasha B., 409 Md. 20, 32–33 (2009) (“in the 
absence of a contrary contextual indication, the use of the word ‘shall’ is presumed to have  
a mandatory meaning . . . and thus denotes an imperative obligation inconsistent with the 
exercise of discretion.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Walzer v. 
Osborne, 395 Md. 563, 580 (2006).  There is no dispute that the off-site improvements to 
Bestgate Road approved by the County’s Engineer Administrator went “over and above” 
the adequate road facilities requirements.  In other words, the improvements were not 
necessary for the Project to satisfy the APF road test established by § 17-5-401(a).   
The Board’s interpretation of § 17-11-207(c)—in which a development must first 
fail to satisfy the APF road requirements thereby triggering the need for a mitigation plan 
in order to be eligible for transportation impact fee credits—would require that we insert 
language into the Code that does not exist.  In other words, the Board’s and the County’s 
interpretation would require that we rewrite subsection (c) to condition the eligibility of 
transportation impact fee credits on the developer’s providing improvements that go “over 
and above the improvements required under a mitigation plan.”  “We neither add nor delete 
language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of 
the statute, and we do not construe a statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit 
23 
 
or extend its application.”  Lockshin, 412 Md. at 275 (internal quotation marks and citations 
omitted). 
Nothing in the plain language of § 17-11-207(c) conditions the developer’s 
entitlement to transportation impact fee credits on the necessity of a mitigation plan under 
§ 17-5-401(a)(3).  Like the Court of Special Appeals, we read § 17-11-207(c) to refer to 
the “adequate road facilities requirements” established generally under § 17-5-401(a) and 
not simply those that require a mitigation plan under § 17-5-401(a)(3).  808 Bestgate, No. 
1156, 2021 WL 1985434 at *7.  If non-site related improvements provide “transportation 
capacity over and above” those requirements, § 17-11-207(c) clearly states that impact fee 
credits “shall” be allowed for those improvements.   
 
We are unpersuaded by the County’s argument that the plain language interpretation 
of § 17-11-207(c) will lead to an absurd or illogical result.  First, the County has adopted 
the same interpretation in connection with other development proposals in which the 
credits have been granted without the need for mitigation.  As reflected in Mr. Schmid’s 
testimony and the agreements discussed in note 7 herein, the undisputed evidence before 
the Board reflected that the County has approved requests for credits where no mitigation 
was necessary to satisfy the APF road requirements.   
Second, if the County determined that the developer’s proposed improvements 
would not add to the transportation capacity or enhance public safety of county roads, it 
could simply deny the approval of the same.  The County retains the sole authority to 
24 
 
approve or deny improvements that are being proposed to a county road.  Here, the 
County’s Engineer Administrator approved the improvements.   
Third, if the County wants to provide discretionary approval, it could simply amend 
the language of the Code.  The County has the authority to amend its Code to reach the 
interpretation that it seeks here—to limit the availability of the transportation impact fee 
credits to those instances where a developer must first undertake improvements as part of 
an approved mitigation plan, and the improvements exceed those required by the mitigation 
plan.  However, until such time as the County chooses to amend the Code, the Court will 
interpret it consistent with its plain language.   
 
Nor are we persuaded by the County’s argument that the language contained in § 17-
11-207(a) provides the County discretionary authority to deny transportation impact fee 
credits for non-site related improvements.  Section 17-11-207(a), which relates to impact 
fees generally, states that “land or construction received and accepted . . . from a developer 
. . . may be credited” against an impact fee obligation.11  Although subsection (a) uses the 
word “may” in discussing credits for public improvements or a dedication of land in other 
contexts, no such discretionary language is included under subsection (c) for transportation 
impact fee credits.  Reading the two subsections together, subsection (a) does not provide 
the County with discretionary authority to deny transportation impact fee credits for non-
site related improvements under subsection (c), which specifically states that the credits 
“shall” be given.  Like the Court of Special Appeals, we determine that there is no conflict 
 
11 As discussed supra, development impact fees are required not simply for road 
impacts, but also for public school and public safety facilities.  See § 17-11-202.  
25 
 
between § 17-11-207(a) and (c).  808 Bestgate, No. 1156, 2021 WL 1985434 at *7.  But 
even if there were a conflict, the more specific language of subsection (c) would control.  
See, e.g., State v. Ghajari, 346 Md. 101, 115 (1997) (noting that when two statutes appear 
to apply to the same situation, the Court will attempt to give effect to both statutes to the 
extent that they are reconcilable.  But if two statutes, one general and one specific, are 
found to be in conflict, the specific statute is controlling.); Mayor and Town Council of 
Oakland v. Mayor and Town Council of Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301, 316–17 (2006).   
We further determine that the “agreement” required under § 17-11-207(c) relates to 
the process for awarding the credits, such as the timing and duration, and does not provide 
the County with discretionary authority to deny credits for non-site related transportation 
improvements that fall within the plain language of that subsection.12  In other words, the 
fact that the Code requires that the credits are to be memorialized in an agreement does not 
negate the mandatory language in subsection (c) that transportation impact fee credits for 
non-site related improvements shall be given.   
F. Given the Parties’ Stipulation that the Improvements are Not “Site-Related,” 
a Remand is Unnecessary 
After holding that the Board erred in denying Bestgate transportation impact fee 
credits based on the Board’s reasoning that mitigation was a prerequisite to receiving 
credits under § 17-11-207(c), the Court of Special Appeals nonetheless pointed out that 
 
12 Our interpretation is consistent with the agreements that we mentioned in note 7 
supra.  Those agreements memorialize the duration and timing of the developers’ receipt 
of the credits, and the accounting for the same, not whether the developer was entitled to 
receipt in the first instance.   
26 
 
under subsection (c), the credits would not be permitted if the Bestgate Road improvements 
were considered to be “site-related” improvements.  See § 17-11-207(c) (stating that 
“[c]redit may not be given for site-related transportation improvements[]”).13   
Under Maryland Rule 8-131(a), “[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any 
other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the 
trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to guide the 
trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal.”  In this case, no party has 
argued that the off-site improvements to Bestgate Road are “site-related improvements” 
under the Code.   
In the briefs and oral arguments before this Court, the parties agreed that 
improvements to Bestgate Road are not “site related” as that term is defined under the 
Code.  Specifically, in response to Bestgate’s arguments contained in its brief on this issue, 
the County filed a Line with this Court stating that it “does not oppose the relief sought” 
by Bestgate on that issue and would not be filing a brief or presenting argument on the 
same.  During the oral arguments to this Court, we asked the question: “Do you agree that 
the improvements were not site related?”  The County Attorney replied, “Yes.” 
 
13 “Site-related transportation improvements” are defined under § 17-11-201(9) as:  
 
capital improvements and dedications and conveyances of rights-of-way for 
site driveways and roads, right and left turn lanes leading to and from site 
driveways, traffic-control measures for site driveways, frontage roads, 
acceleration and deceleration lanes, roads necessary to provide direct access 
to a development, local road improvements required by this article, and any 
other direct access improvements.   
27 
 
Given that the County does not dispute the interpretation of its own Code provisions 
on this issue, we determine that under Maryland Rule 8-131(a), a remand to the Board to 
resolve the same is not “necessary or desirable . . . to avoid the expense and delay of another 
appeal.”  Considering the County’s concession, we see no reason for this case to be 
remanded to the Board on this issue.   
III. 
Conclusion  
 
Under the plain language of § 17-11-207(c), Bestgate was entitled to receive 
transportation impact fee credits for improvements made to Bestgate Road that went “over 
and above the adequate road facilities requirements” required by the Code.  It is undisputed 
that the road improvements exceeded the requirements of the County’s adequate road 
facilities provisions and were approved by the County’s Engineer Administrator.  Under 
the plain language of the Code, Bestgate was entitled to receive transportation impact fee 
credits, and the Board erred in its interpretation of the Code.   
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL 
APPEALS 
AFFIRMED 
IN 
PART 
AND 
REVERSED IN PART.  CASE REMANDED TO 
THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH 
INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO 
THE CIRCUIT COURT, WITH FURTHER 
INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO 
THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER 
PROCEEDINGS 
CONSISTENT 
WITH 
THIS 
OPINION.  COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE 
PETITIONER 
ANNE 
ARUNDEL 
COUNTY, 
MARYLAND.