Title: Foley v. Hovnanian

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

HEADNOTES:  Foley v. K. Hovnanian at Kent Island, LLC, No. 35,
September Term 2007
CIVIL PROCEDURE; STATUTORY REVIEW OF LOCAL COUNTY
CODE: Where the text of enacted County Ordinances approving an applicant’s growth
allocation petition provides that amended Critical Area Overlay Maps are attached that
reflect the County Commissioners’ approval of that applicant’s growth allocation petition,
but, none in fact are attached, the enacted Ordinances will not nullify or overshadow the real
intention of the County Commissioners, which was to approve the applicant’s growth
allocation petition, especially when their intent behind enacting the Ordinances was clear and
unambiguous.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; STATUTORY REVIEW OF LOCAL COUNTY
CODE: Under Queen Anne’s County Code Chapter 14:1, amended Critical Area Overlay
Maps are not required to be drafted, or in existence, either for County Commissioners to
approve an applicant’s Growth Allocation Petition or for that approved petition subsequently
to become effective.
CIVIL PROCEDURE; STATUTORY REVIEW OF LOCAL COUNTY
CODE: The ambiguous language in Queen Anne’s County Code §14:1-77(G), against the backdrop of
our interpretive principles and applicable case law, contemplates that the drafting of amended Critical Area
Overlay Maps is a ministerial function that is to be performed by Queen Anne’s County employees following
the County Commissioners’ approval of an applicant’s growth allocation petition.   
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
No. 35
September Term 2007
ROBERT W. FOLEY, JR., et al.
v. 
K. HOVNANIAN at KENT ISLAND, LLC .
Bell, C.J.
         *Raker
Harrell
Battaglia
Eldridge, John C. (Retired, 
specially assigned)
          Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, specially
assigned)
          Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, specially
assigned),
JJ.
  
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
Filed:    August 21, 2009
*Raker, J., now retired, participated in the hearing
and conference of this case while an active
member of this Court; after being recalled
pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section
3A, she also participated in the decision and
adoption of this opinion.
I.
Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay is nothing short of magnificent.  For decades, fishermen found
plentiful supplies of blue crabs, clams and oysters in its waters.  Over time, however, the
results of increased human activity on, in and near the Bay saw its deterioration and the
decrease in the fruits it bore.  In 1984, the Maryland General Assembly responded in part.
It enacted the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program (“the Program”), see
Maryland Code (2007 Repl. Vol.) §§8-1801 to 8-1817 of the Natural Resources Article, to
counteract the increasing levels of deterioration that human activity near the Chesapeake
Bay’s waters and habitats was causing.  The Program required all local jurisdictions, under
the direction of a newly created Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, to formulate and
implement a plan to control development near certain shoreline areas.  § 8-1801(b)(1)-(b)(2).
Queen Anne’s County adopted such a Critical Area Program, the provisions of which were
set forth in Queen Anne’s County Code, Environmental Protection Article, Chapter 14.
The Queen Anne’s County program divides land within the Critical Area into three
development categories:  Resource Conservation Area (“RCA”), Limited Development Area
(“LDA”) and Intensely Developed Area (“IDA”).  Development on land in the RCA is highly
restricted; only one dwelling per 20 acres is permitted.  Land within the LDA is subject to
fewer development restrictions; however, that area only allows impervious surfaces to
comprise 15% of the development that occurs in that designated area.  The IDA, the least
1 §8-1808.1(b) of the Natural Resources Article provides:
“(b) Calculation of growth allocation. — The growth allocation for a local jurisdiction
shall be calculated based on 5 percent of the total resource conservation area in a local
jurisdiction:
“(1) In the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area at the time of the original approval of the
local jurisdiction’s program by the Commission, not including tidal wetlands or
land owned by the federal government; or
“(2) In the Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area at the time of the original approval
of the local jurisdiction’s program by the Commission, not including tidal wetlands
or land owned by the federal government.”
2 Maryland Code (2007 Repl. Vol.) § 8-1802(a)(11) of the Natural Resources Article
defines “Growth Allocation” as “the number of acres of land in the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area or Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area that a local jurisdiction may use to
create new intensely developed areas and new limited development areas.”  Queen
Anne’s County Code §14:1-11 defines “Growth Allocation” as “[a]n area of land
calculated as 5% of total resource conservation area designated land within the critical
area (excluding tidal wetlands and federally owned land), that the County Commissioners
may convert to more intensely developed areas.”
2
restrictive development classification, allows most land uses, although it does require strict
adherence to performance standards for storm water runoff.  In addition, consistent with, and
as permitted by, §8-1808.1(b)1 of the Natural Resources Article, Queen Anne’s County
retained a growth allocation. 2  Section 8-1808.1(c) permits a local jurisdiction to retain the
power to reclassify land designated as  RCA into either or both of the less restrictive
development categories, IDA or LDA.  Nevertheless, before the Queen Anne’s County
3 Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(E) states:
“Critical Area Commission approval.  All growth allocation petitions that
receive conceptual approval by the County Commissioners will be
forwarded to the Critical Area Commission for review and approval.  No
award of growth allocation shall become effective until after the County
Commissioners have taken final legislative action on the petition.”
3
Commissioners may grant a growth allocation petition, approval from the Critical Area
Commission first must be obtained.  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(E). 3
K. Hovnanian at Kent Island, LLC (“Hovnanian”), the respondent, is the developer
of Four Seasons at Kent Island (“Four Seasons”), an “active adult, age restricted”
community, located in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.  The plans for Four Seasons provide
for 1,350 dwelling units, an assisted living facility and various community and recreational
amenities, to be constructed on approximately 560 acres of land situated within the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Hovnanian thus was required to request that the Queen
Anne’s County Commissioners exercise their authority to reclassify the retained growth
allocation so that more intensive development could occur on certain portions of the
proposed site. 
4 Q.A.C.C. §14:1-76 reads:
“§14:1-76.  Growth allocation process.
“The County’s growth allocation will be used to amend the development area
classification on the Official Critical Area Maps on a project-by-project basis.  The
following procedures will be followed in determining if a site qualifies for growth
allocation:
A. Prior to submitting a petition to the County Commissioners for map
amendments utilizing the growth allocation, applicants shall submit a sketch
or concept plan to the Planning Commission, together with a fee as
prescribed by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission will
review the sketch or concept development plan for consistency with the
County’s Critical Area Program and will provide technical comments and
recommendations.  The applicant shall incorporate the Planning
Commission’s technical comments and recommendations into the petition
filed with the County Commissioners.
B. All petitions for map amendments utilizing growth allocation shall be
accompanied by a concept site plan or subdivision sketch plat, prepared in
conformity with the requirements of the Queen Anne’s County Zoning
Ordinance in addition to any information required by §14:1-77A of this
Chapter 14:1.
C. In approving a map amendment utilizing the growth allocation, the
County Commissioners may establish additional conditions of approval that
are consistent with the intent of the Queen Anne’s County Critical Area
Program.  
D. Review criteria.  The following review criteria will guide the selection of
projects that may be assigned growth allocation:
(1) Proposed development projects using growth allocation
must be determined to be consistent with the Queen Anne’s
County Comprehensive Plan and Queen Anne’s County
Critical Area Program and the Growth Subarea Plans.  
 (2) Proposed development projects that implement specific development or
redevelopment objectives of the Comprehensive Plan or a Growth Subarea
4
Article XV, §14:1-764 of the Queen Anne’s County Code (“Q.A.C.C.”), outlines the
Plan shall be given priority for growth allocation, and growth allocation is
set aside for implementation of these projects in the Growth Management
Pool.
(3)  Proposed development projects determined by the County to be of
substantial  economic benefit and located in a designated growth area shall be given
priority for growth allocation, and growth allocation is set aside for implementation of
these projects in the Growth Management Pool.
(4)  Proposed development projects located outside of designated growth
areas may be assigned growth allocation if they are a commercial, industrial, residential
or institutional project determined to be of substantial economic benefit to residents of
the County and/or meet a recognized public need.  Growth allocation for implementation
of these projects may be from either the General Pool or the Growth Management Pool.  
E.  Minimum mandatory design standards.  Once the maximum permitted density of
development has been determined, the proposed project must demonstrate that it
will meet or exceed the following design standards in order to be approved:
(1) All applicable requirements of the Queen Anne’s County Zoning Code, the
Subdivision Regulations and the Queen Anne’s County Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Program and Act have been met.
(2) A land management classification change has been approved by the County
Commissioners and the Critical Area Commission.  
(3)  The design of the development enhances the water quality and resource and
habitat values of the area, e.g., results in additional planting of forest cover in
the Buffer or implementation of best management practices on portions of the
site to be retained in agriculture use.  
(4) The development incorporates the comments and recommendations of the County
and the Maryland Fish, Heritage and Wildlife Administration in the project
design.
(5) The developer executes restrictive covenants that guarantee maintenance of any
required open space areas.   
5
steps that an applicant seeking a growth allocation must follow.  In conformance with that
provision, Hovnanian submitted a concept plan (the “2000 Growth Allocation Plan”) and a
Petition for Growth Allocation to the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners on June 9, 2000.
6
The 2000 Growth Allocation Plan was a plat that depicted the acreage and location of the
land Hovnanian wanted the Commissioners to reclassify from RCA to either LDA or IDA.
 On June 13, 2000, the County Commissioners forwarded Hovnanian’s Petition for Growth
Allocation and the 2000 Growth Allocation Plan to the Queen Anne’s County Planning
Commission, which conducted a public hearing and recommended that Hovnanian’s Growth
Allocation Petition be approved, with several conditions.  The County Commissioners
accepted that recommendation, granted “conceptual approval” to Hovnanian’s Petition for
Growth Allocation and forwarded the Petition to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission for approval.  The Critical Area Commission, following a public hearing and
public comment, approved Hovnanian’s Petition and the 2000 Growth Allocation Plan.
The County Commissioners held a public hearing on Hovnanian’s Petition, following
which it made “Findings of Fact.”  Subsequently, the County Commissioners passed
Resolution No. 01-13, proposing to approve Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition, subject
to numerous conditions.  One of the conditions was that Hovnanian “enter into a legally
binding Developers Rights and Responsibilities Agreement with the County.”  The County
Commissioners then referred their proposed approval, along with the outlined conditions,
back to the Critical Area Commission for its review and approval.  
Hovnanian prepared an Amended Concept/Sketch Plan that incorporated the
conditions imposed by Resolution No. 01-13.  This Amended Concept/Sketch Plan (the
7
“2001 Growth Allocation Plan”), referencing the conditions, included a revised Growth
Allocation Plan that was labeled and referred to as “Sheet 7 of 8.”  The County’s Planning
Commission and the Critical Area Commission approved Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth
Allocation Plan.  Subsequently, with the enactment of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A on
August 21, 2001, the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners approved Hovnanian’s 2001
Growth Allocation Plan.  Together, Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A granted Hovnanian the
Growth Allocation it sought.  Ordinance 01-01 provided, in relevant part:
“FOR THE PURPOSE of utilizing Critical Area Growth
Allocation to redesignate 293.25 acres of property near
Stevensville, Maryland from Resource Conservation Area
(RCA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) and to utilize pre-
mapped growth allocation to redesignate 79.55 acres of land
from Limited Development Area (LDA) to Intense Development
Area (IDA) by amending part of parcels 7, 8 and 11 on Queen
Anne’s County Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No.
49 and Parcels 1, 8, 347 and 532 on Official Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Map No. 57.”
Ordinance 01-01 also provided:
“BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND that Title 14 of
 the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne’s County (1996
Ed.) be amended by the repeal of Official Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57 and the adoption of the
attached Map Nos. 49 and 57 as the Official Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57.” (Emphasis Added).
Ordinance 01-01A conditioned approval given by the County Commissioners of the
Hovnanian Growth Allocation Petition both on Hovnanian entering into a Developer Rights
5 Critical Area Overlay Maps are transparent overlays that literally are placed on top of
Queen Anne’s County Zoning Maps.  The Zoning Maps, in turn, are based on tax maps
prepared by the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT Maps”). 
The respondent concedes that there will be “inherent inaccuracies” between the Critical
Area Overlay Maps and the SDAT Maps because the SDAT Maps, which the Zoning
Maps are based on, are not created based on an actual survey.  The potential for
inaccuracies is openly acknowledged on the SDAT Maps:  “The information shown
hereon has been compiled from deed descriptions and is not an actual survey.  It should
not be used for legal descriptions.  Users noting errors are urged to notify the Property
Map Division . . . .”   
8
and Responsibilities Agreement with the County and satisfying the conditions imposed on
the project by its earlier conditional approval of Resolution No. 01-13.
It is undisputed that, when the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners enacted
Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A on August 21, 2001, no Critical Area Overlay Maps5 were
attached to the Ordinances.  Instead, several months later, on December 4, 2001, the Queen
Anne’s County Commissioners signed Overlay Maps 49 and 57 (the “2001 Overlay Maps”).
There were cartographic errors on the 2001 Overlay Maps, however.  Therefore, revised
Overlay Maps were drafted and submitted to the County Commissioners on October 8, 2002
(the “2002 Overlay Maps”). 
After litigation commenced in this case, the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County
appointed an independent surveyor to evaluate whether the 2002 Overlay Maps accurately
depicted Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth Allocation Plan.  The surveyor’s report determined that
the 2002 Overlay Maps also contained a cartographic error — the maps wrongly classified
9
as in IDA 7.5 acres of property belonging to a third-party, when that property actually was
classified RCA — a fact that Hovnanian acknowledged in open court to be correct.
II.
Procedural History
Kent Island resident Robert W. Foley, along with three other individual plaintiffs and
Queen Anne’s Conservation Association, Inc. (the petitioners), filed, in April of 2005 in the
Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
In that action, they challenged the validity of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A.  Hovnanian
intervened in the litigation as a defendant and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  After
twice amending their complaint, the plaintiffs filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment.
After three hearings on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, the Circuit Court issued
a Memorandum Opinion and entered Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  That judgment
enjoined Hovnanian from utilizing the County’s award of growth allocation until accurate
Critical Area Overlay Maps had been drafted.  Hovnanian responded by motioning both to
alter or amend the judgment, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-534, and to modify the
injunctions.  Hovnanian’s M otion to Alter or Amend the Circuit Court’s Judgment argued,
as relevant here, that accurate Overlay Maps, delineating where the growth allocation had
been awarded, were not a condition precedent to the acts pertinent or necessary to that
approval and, therefore, that the Circuit Court erred in declaring otherwise.  In addition,
Hovnanian’s Motion to Modify Injunctions sought permission from the Circuit Court to
request that the Department of Planning and Zoning extend the time period available for
6 We granted Certiorari to consider the following questions:
“1) What is the legal effect of an Ordinance enacted to create new Critical
Area districts, when the Ordinance contains no information about the
location of the new district boundaries?
“2) Does the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act allow intensive
development in the Critical Area, absent delineation of a supporting
development district on the official Critical Area Maps?
“3) Did the Circuit Court err by enjoining the County from acting upon
development proposals which are predicated upon the re-classification of
land until the re-classified land has been accurately delineated on the
10
Hovnanian to seek site plan and subdivision approval for Four Seasons.  The Circuit Court
denied both Motions, whereupon Hovnanian noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.
The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal.
The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, reversed the judgment of the
Circuit Court, including the  injunction, holding that the enactment of Ordinances 01-01 and
01-01A constituted final legislative action granting Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition.
The intermediate appellate court reasoned that the effectiveness of the approval of a  Growth
Allocation Petition did not depend upon the drafting, and therefore, the existence, of accurate
Overlay Maps.  Aggrieved, the plaintiffs  filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which this
Court granted.  Foley v. Hovnanian, 399 Md. 595, 925 A.2d 634 (2007).  
One of the central issues in this case is whether, where the ordinances approving a
growth allocation petition, enacted by the County Commissioners, reference Critical Area
Overlay Maps, the effectiveness of that approval depended on the existence of such maps and
on their being filed with the ordinances when the ordinances were enacted.6  We shall hold,
official Critical Area Maps?
“4) When a map amendment process concludes with the creation, approval
and recordation of an official Critical Area map with demonstrable
mistakes, is the proper procedure for correcting the mistakes the same as the
statutory procedure created to correct other mistakes in the Program?  If not,
what law sets forth the specific steps the County must take to lawfully
correct the mistakes?”
11
for the reasons that follow, that amended Critical Area Overlay Maps do not have to be in
existence when, or filed at the same time that, the ordinances granting the amendments
reflected on the maps are enacted.
III.
Legal Analysis
Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A memorialized the Queen Anne’s County
Commissioners’ approval of Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition.  They did so  “by the
repeal of Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57 and the adoption of the
attached Map Nos. 49 and 57 as the Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and
57.”  See Queen Anne’s County Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A (Emphasis Added).  The
petitioners’ first argument, therefore, is that Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A are invalid
because their text expressly and  explicitly provided, and thus required, that revised Overlay
Maps would be attached to the ordinances when, in actuality, none were.  They assert that,
because no Overlay Maps actually were attached to these Ordinances, enactment of these
Ordinances by the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners  was a nullity.  The petitioners
reason that, without the Overlay Maps, the County Commissioners had no way of knowing
12
the impact granting Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition would have or how the
boundaries for the various development categories would be affected.  They note that
Hovnanian’s request for growth allocation did not follow readily identifiable landmarks such
as property lines or roadways, making the attachment of the referenced Overlay Maps even
more critical, if not essential, to the ability of each of the County Commissioners to
understand the consequences of his or her vote.   According to the petitioners, the absence
of a metes and bounds description of the development boundaries or of text in the Ordinances
directing  a reader to a specific plat containing that information, made it impossible for the
County Commissioners to know the location of the growth allocation they were approving
and, therefore, its effect or impact on the Critical Area regime.  
The Court of Special Appeals held that the petitioners waived the Overlay Maps issue.
In reaching this conclusion, the intermediate appellate court referred not only to the record,
but also to the Circuit Court’s observation that “[a]ll parties recognize in one way or another
that the action of the County Commissioners on August 21, 2001, represented final approval
of the Hovnanian proposal in terms of the conditions stated in Ordinance 01-01A and other
documents containing the County Commissioners’ resolution of April 17, 2001, and
conditions of the Planning Commission and CAC [the Critical Area Commission].”  In the
petitioners’ brief to this Court, they proffer that they have preserved this argument for
7 The record does contain the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment,
but it is not where the Extract references indicated it is.  The plaintiffs’ Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is at E. 21-22 of the Record Extract.  The Plaintiffs’
Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment does not begin until E. 75.  Our
precedent has made it clear that every party has a responsibility not only to ensure that a
proper record is made but also to refer the reviewing court to the proper location in the
record carefully and accurately.  See King v. State Rds. Comm’n, 284 Md. 368, 374 n.3,
396 A.2d 267, 271 n.3 (1979); Tilghman v. Frazer, 198 Md. 250, 258, 81 A.2d 627, 631
(1951). 
13
review, stating that “the issue was fully briefed in Plaintiff’s (sic) [M]emorandum in
[S]upport of Summary Judgment at pages E-21-22.”7  Brief of Appellants at 9.  
Ordinarily, an appellate court will not review an issue that has not been preserved in
the trial court.  Maryland Rule 8-131(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[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.”  The rationale for this preservation rule is  the promotion of the orderly
administration of the law and the desirability that all parties in a case have a fair opportunity
to address  fully the issues raised by opposing counsel.  See Brice v. State, 254 Md. 655, 255
A.2d 28 (1969); Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643, 119 A.2d 917 (1956).  
On review of the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, we are
satisfied that the petitioners did preserve this issue for review.   There, the petitioners argued:
14
“In this case though, there is no ‘ambiguity.’  Ordinance 01-01A clearly and
unequivocally ‘adopt[ed]’ nothing more nor less than certain ‘attached’ maps.
These words must be given meaning:  the courts may ‘not add words or ignore
those that are there’.  In fact, no maps were ‘adopt[ed].  For this reason alone,
Ordinance 01-01A must fall.”  (Citations and italics omitted).
The petitioners assert that since the maps were not attached to the Ordinances, as the
Ordinances’ text expressly and explicitly stated they would be, the Ordinances are invalid.
 This is  especially so, they continue, because the Ordinances lacked any metes and bounds
description indicating the location of the  growth allocation the County Commissioners were
authorizing.   The petitioners rely on Soron Realty Co. v. Town of Geddes, 23 A.D.2d 165,
259 N.Y.S.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965).  
In Soron, zoning amendments enacted by the Town of Geddes were challenged.  In
1942, the Town of Geddes, the appellee, adopted a Zoning Ordinance under which property,
owned by Soron Realty Co., Inc. (Soron) was unclassified.  That property was  leased by
Solvay Iron Works, Inc. (Solvay), a small steel fabricating operation, which, in 1948, slowly
began to expand its operations.   The property remained unclassified until the zoning
amendments at issue in Soron sought to classify it as Commercial A.  In 1954, the Town of
Geddes enacted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that reclassified multiple properties.
Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 166, 259 N.Y.S.2d at 560.  The property owned and leased by Soron and
Solvay, the appellants, was one of the properties reclassified.  Dissatisfied and because the
reclassification adversely affected Solvay’s business, the appellants challenged the validity
8 The 1954 Zoning Amendments, by changing the zoning of the property to Commercial
A, would have prohibited Solvay from operating its steel fabricating business except
under a prior nonconforming use.  Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 167, 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561.  The
Town of Geddes conceded that a nonconforming use existed on the petitioners’ property,
but maintained that it applied only to a portion of the premises. 
15
of the 1954 Amendments.8  Their challenge was two-fold.   First, they argued that, before the
enactment of the 1954 Amendments, the appellants had a nonconforming use as to the entire
property.  Second, they maintained  that the enactment of the 1954 Amendments did not
comply with the procedural requirements of a section of the Town Law.  Soron, 23 A.D.2d
at 166, 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561. It was the latter argument which the New York intermediate
appellate court found persuasive and, thus, on which it based its holding. 
Section 264 of the Town Law, the section on which the Soron appellants relied,
required that “every amendment to a zoning ordinance (including any map incorporated
therein) * * * shall be entered in the minutes of the town board * * * and a copy of such
ordinance or amendment together with a copy of any map incorporated therein shall be
posted on the sign board maintained by the town clerk.”  Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 167, 259
N.Y.S.2d at 561.  Soron and Solvay asserted that the procedural requirements of Section 264
were not satisfied because the 1954 Zoning Amendments did not include a geographical
description of the areas impacted by the amendments, nor were the new zoning maps entered
into the Town Board’s minutes.  Additionally, Soron and Solvay argued that the 1954
Amendments were not enacted pursuant to Section 264 because no new zoning map was
16
placed on the signboard maintained by the Town Clerk.  Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 167, 259
N.Y.S.2d at 561.  
The Soron court held that the Town Board’s failure to comply with the procedural
requirements of Section 264 rendered the 1954 Zoning Amendments invalid.  Soron, 23
A.D.2d at 167, 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561.  The intermediate appellate court reasoned that, in light
of its earlier precedent, the Town Board’s failure to publish the proposed New Zoning Map
or to provide a geographical description of the affected properties denied to affected property
owners the right to know the zoning classification of their property.  Soron, 23 A.D.2d at
168, 259 N.Y.S.2d at 562.  
The petitioners in the case sub judice, believing the cases to be factually quite close,
proffer that, just as the Soron court found it essential that property owners have proper notice
of zoning changes, Queen Anne’s County residents also are entitled to know when and
where the County Commissioners have awarded growth allocation.  Because no maps were
attached to Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A, they argue that Queen Anne’s County property
owners, like the property owners in Soron, were deprived of this important and essential
information.  
The respondent does not agree.  It proffers that, under the petitioners’ view, literal
intent would trump the real intention of the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners in
17
enacting Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A.  In support of this proposition, the respondent
argues: 
“In the case of a mistake in a reference in a statute to another statute, to a
constitutional provision, or to a public document, record, or the like, where the
real intent of the legislature is manifest, and would be defeated by an
adherence to the terms of the mistaken reference, the mistaken reference will
be regarded as surplusage, or will be read as corrected, in order to give effect
to the legislative intent.” (Footnotes omitted).
Quoting 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes §122 (2006).  See Tatlow v. Bacon, 101 Kan. 26, 31, 165
P. 835, 837 (1917) (citing Coney v. Mayor & Comm’rs of Topeka, 96 Kan. 46, 49, 149 P.
689, 690 (1915)) (Legislative enactments containing errors, omissions or mistakes will not
be the basis for defeating a statute when the intent of the Legislature is obvious).  See also
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Durkin, 195 Misc. 1040, 1045, 91 N.Y.S.2d 26, 31-32 (N.Y. App.
Div. 1949).  The respondent concludes:  the failure of the Queen Anne’s County
Commissioners to attach Overlay Maps 49 and 57 should not overshadow the real intention
of the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners when they enacted Ordinances 01-01 and 01-
01A, which was to approve Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition.  We agree.
 The preamble to Ordinance 01-01 provides:
“An act concerning the Repeal and Readoption with amendments of the Public
Local Laws of Queen Anne’s county (1996 Ed.) Title 14, Environmental
Protection, 1996 Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57.
“For the purpose of utilizing Critical Area Growth Allocation to redesignate
293.25 acres of property near Stevensville, Maryland from Resource
Conservation Area (RCA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) and to utilize
18
pre-mapped growth allocation to redesignate 79.55 acres of land from Limited
Development Area (LDA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) by amending
part of parcels 7, 8 and 11 on Queen Anne’s County Official Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Map No. 49 and Parcels 1, 8, 347 and 532 on Official
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 57.” 
There seems to be no dispute, and certainly there is no doubt,  that the land referred
to in the preamble to Ordinance 01-01 is that belonging to the Four Seasons at Kent Island.
Nevertheless, and  even though the preamble unequivocally declares that Ordinance 01-01
was intended to utilize growth allocation for the Four Seasons property, the petitioners
maintain that this Court should invalidate Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A because no maps
reflecting what the Commissioners approved had been drafted and no such maps were
attached to the Ordinances.   That is contrary to the court’s duty, however.  
This Court’s task, when the meaning of legislation is at issue, is to ascertain and
effectuate the real intent of the legislative body enacting it.  Andrews v. City of Greenbelt,
293 Md. 69, 75, 441 A.2d 1064, 1068-69 (1982) (citing Harbor Island Marina, Inc. v. Bd. of
County Comm’rs, 286 Md. 303, 311, 407 A.2d 738, 742 (1979)).  To be sure, this
interpretive principle applies whether the legislative enactment is by a state legislature or  is
one passed by a local legislative body.  See Trip Associates, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council,
392 Md. 563, 573, 898 A.2d 449, 455-56 (2006) (citing County Council v. E.L. Gardner,
Inc., 293 Md. 259, 268, 443 A.2d 114, 119 (1982)); O’Connor v. Baltimore County, 382 Md.
102, 113, 854 A.2d 1191, 1198 (2004) (“Local ordinances and charters are interpreted under
19
the same canons of construction that apply to the interpretation of 
statutes.”); Waters Landing
Ltd. P’ship v. Montgomery County, 337 Md. 15, 28, 650 A.2d 712, 718 (1994); Village
Square No. 1, Inc. v. Crow-Frederick Retail Limited Partnership, 77 Md. App. 552, 562, 551
A.2d 471, 475 (1989) (interpreting City of Frederick, Maryland Code §22-35).  By enacting
Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A, the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners intended to
approve Hovnanian’s project which required approval of its growth allocation petition.  That
was their real intent.  If this Court were to adopt the petitioners’ reasoning, we would be
placing form over substance and disregarding the real intent of the Queen Anne’s County
Commissioners. 
The petitioners’ reliance on Soron Realty Co. v. Town of Geddes, 23 A.D.2d 165, 259
N.Y.S.2d 559 (1965) is not persuasive.   The notice concerns in Soron are absent here.  The
proposition for which the petitioners rely on Soron is that, without the Overlay Maps attached
to Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A, Queen Anne’s County landowners would not have notice
of the development category into which the subject property would fall or of any
contemplated change to that development category that the County Commissioners’ approval
of the Hovnanian Growth Allocation Petition would effectuate.  This argument lacks merit
because here, unlike in Soron, Queen Anne’s County residents were given a description of
the property that was being awarded growth allocation.  In the preamble to Ordinance 01-01,
approving the growth allocation at issue here, the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners
20
reclassified “293.25 acres of property near Stevensville, Maryland . . . by amending part of
parcels 7, 8 and 11 on Queen Anne’s County Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No.
49 and Parcels 1, 8, 347 and 532 on Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 57.” 
The 1954 Zoning Amendments in Soron, on the other hand, contained no geographical
description of the reclassified boundaries enacted by the Town Board, and Town Officials
failed to publish the map containing such information.  Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 166, 259
N.Y.S.2d at 561.  Thus, citizens in the Town of Geddes had no way of knowing which
properties were impacted by the reclassifications that occurred as a result of the 1954
Amendments.  Ordinance 01-01, on the other hand, contained a geographical description of
the properties that would be reclassified as a result of the County Commissioners’ approval
of Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition.  
In addition, the growth allocation ordinances enacted in this case, unlike the zoning
amendments enacted in Soron, only changed the development categories on one property,
that belonging to The Four Seasons.   Said otherwise, Ordinance 01-01 and 01-01A did not
intend to affect the level of development that any surrounding landowners could engage in
because the ordinances only altered the classification of the development categories on the
Four Seasons’ property.   See Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77 (A) (“A request for growth allocation
petition may be initiated by a petition of the property owner filed with the County
9Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(B) reads:
“Planning Commission; referral, investigation and recommendation.  All growth
allocation petitions shall be referred to the Planning Commission for investigation
and recommendation.  The Planning Commission shall first hold a public hearing
at which parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard.  At
least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County.  In addition, the Planning
Commission shall post notice of its public hearing on the property for which
growth allocation is requested and, to the extent possible based on the best
available information, notify all property owners immediately contiguous to the
property of the hearing date, time and place.”
21
Commissioners.” (Emphasis added)).   Thus, growth allocation is awarded only to property
owners that file the requisite petition with the Queen Anne’s County Commissioner. 
To be sure, like zoning, where non-petitioning landowners can be affected by a
county’s legislative acts, see Harbor Island Marina v. Board of County Commissioners, 286
Md. 303, 312-13, 407 A. 2d 738, 743 (1979) (stating that Maryland counties within the limits
of the police power, have broad authority to exercise zoning powers), the award of growth
allocation can affect the property of a non-growth allocation awardee.   That is not the
concern that the Soron case addressed.   There was ample notice to the surrounding property
owners of Hovnanian’s petition for growth allocation.  Indeed,  Robert W. Foley, the named
petitioner in this case, addressed the Critical Area Commission on September 12, 2000 about
Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition.  Moreover, Foley was informed about Hovnanian’s
Growth Allocation Petition for Four Seasons, as were other contiguous property owners
pursuant to Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(B).9  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(B) required that an announcement
22
of the public hearing on Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition be published in a County
newspaper at least 14 days prior to the hearing before the Planning Commission.  The ample
notice that both Foley and Queen Anne’s County residents received further detracts from
Foley’s argument that notice, or the lack thereof, was an issue when Queen Anne’s County
Commissioners enacted the Ordinances with no maps attached.  There simply is no issue of
the kind addressed in Soron, whether the property owner whose property had been
reclassified had notice, or sufficient notice, of the reclassification.   
The central point of contention in this case is whether accurate Overlay Maps had to
be drafted and filed with the approving ordinances, which the County Commissioners
enacted,  in order for Hovnanian’s growth allocation to be effective.  The petitioners refer
this Court to Maryland Code (2000 Repl. Vol., 2006) §8-1808.1(c)(4) of the Natural
Resources Article:
“New intensely developed or limited development areas to be located in the
resource conservation area shall conform to all criteria of the Commission for
intensely developed or limited development areas and shall be designated on
the comprehensive zoning map submitted by the local jurisdiction as part of
its application to the Commission for program approval or at a later date in
compliance with §8-1809(g) of this subtitle[.]”
10 The Circuit Court below believed that Q.A.C.C. §14:1-17(B) was dispositive on the
issue of whether accurate Critical Area Overlay Maps  had to be drafted before or
contemporaneous with the County Commissioners’ award of growth allocation.  Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-17(B) reads as follows:
“ARTICLE IV Boundaries; Interpretations; Maps
      *       *       *
“B.  Development areas.  For the purposes of this Chapter 14:1, all land and
water areas in Queen Anne’s County which are located within the critical
area are hereby divided into one of three development areas as determined
by the criteria established for each development area in this Chapter 14:1
and as delineated on the official Critical Area Maps of Queen Anne’s
County, as they may be amended from time to time, which, together with
any explanatory materials thereon, are hereby made a part of this Chapter
14:1: (1) Intensely developed area (IDA); (2) Limited development area
(LDA); or (3) Resource conservation area (RCA).”
The Court of Special Appeals rejected the Circuit Court’s reliance and interpretation of
Article IV:
“Use of the conjunctive in this section [the conjunctive “and” in Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-17(B)] led the court to conclude that approval and delineation were
distinct acts, but also led the court to conclude that ‘until both requisites are
met, a development area remains as it was before any amendatory action.’ 
We disagree.  Section 17.B is part of Article IV of Part 4 of Chapter 14:1. 
Part 4 deals with the ‘Establishment of Development Areas.’ We deal here
with growth allocations.  The more particular provisions concerning map
amendments utilizing growth allocations are found in Article XV of
Chapter 14:1.” 
23
We disagree with the petitioners’ reliance on that section.10  Section 8-1808.1(c)(4)
addresses a county’s initial establishment of a Critical Area Program and the periodic review
of that program that counties must undertake as required by §8-1809(g) of the Natural
11 Maryland Code (2007 Repl. Vol.) §8-1809(g) reads:
“(g) Review and proposed amendment of entire program. — Each local jurisdiction shall
review its entire program and propose any necessary amendments to its entire program,
including local zoning maps, at least every 6 years.  Each local jurisdiction shall send in
writing to the Commission, within 60 days after the completion of its review, the
following information:
“(1) A statement certifying that the required review has been accomplished;
“(2) Any necessary requests for program amendments, program refinements, or
other matters that the local jurisdiction wishes the Commission to consider;
“(3) An updated resource inventory; and
“(4) A statement quantifying acreages within each land classification, the growth
allocation used, and the growth allocation remaining.”
24
Resources Article.11  In Maryland Code (2000 Repl. Vol., 2006) §8-1808 of the Natural
Resources Article, local jurisdictions are directed to establish a Critical Area Program, such
as the one adopted by Queen Anne’s County, that establishes certain land use policies for
development in areas surrounding the Chesapeake Bay.  Maryland Code (2000 Repl. Vol.,
2006) §8-1809(g) of the Natural Resources Article provides that “[e]ach local jurisdiction
shall review its entire program and propose any necessary amendments to its entire program,
including local zoning maps, at least every 4 years beginning with the 4-year anniversary of
the date that the program became effective and every 4 years after that date.”  As pointed out
by the respondent, this statutory language does not require or even imply that Overlay Maps
for every award of Growth Allocation by County Commissioners be added before any such
Growth Allocation Petition can be approved and become effective.  Instead, §8-1808.1(c)(4)
and §8-1809(g)  require only that maps outlining newly classified IDA or LDA areas be
provided to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission at the inception of a county’s
25
program and every four years thereafter.  As neither § 8-1808 nor §8-1809 addresses the
specific role that Overlay Maps play in the Growth Allocation Petition process, and more
particularly,  whether the effectiveness of the County Commissioners’ approval of
Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition is contingent on the attachment to the Ordinances
of accurate Critical Area Overlay Maps depicting the approved Growth Allocation,  we turn
our attention to Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77.
Article XV, §14:1-77 of the Queen Anne’s County Code addresses the Growth
Allocation Petition process.  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(F) and (G) provide:
“F.  Final approval by the County Commissioners.
“(1)   Within 120 days of receiving notification from the
Critical Area Commission that the proposed growth
allocation petition has been conditionally approved
pursuant to the provisions of § 8-1809 of the Natural
Resources Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland,
the County Commissioners shall introduce legislation
and take final legislative action on the proposed growth
allocation.
(2) If the Planning Commission has recommended
approval of a growth allocation petition and the County
Commissioners propose to approve an award of growth
allocation which substantially changes or departs from
those recommendations, the proposal of the County
Commissioners shall be referred to the Planning
Commission, in writing, for its further recommendations
and to the Critical Area Commission for review and
approval prior to any legislative action.  If such
recommendations are not received by the County
Commissioners within 90 days after the proposal has
been transmitted to the Planning Commission, the
26
County Commissioners may proceed to take final action
without such recommendations.
(3) A growth allocation petition shall not be effective
until after it is approved by the Critical Area Commission
and not until 45 days after approval by the County
Commissioners.
“G.  Map amendment.  The Official Critical Area Map(s) will be
amended to reflect the new development area designation when the
approved growth allocation petition becomes effective.”
 Pursuant to Queen Anne’s County Code §14:1-77(F), there is  a 45 day waiting period
between the time when the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners’ approve an applicant’s
petition for growth allocation and when that applicant’s approved petition can become
effective.  Thus, approval of a petition for growth allocation and the effectiveness of the
approved petition are not events that occur simultaneously.  
When presented with a question involving statutory interpretation, we begin with  the
words of the ordinance “since the words of the [ordinance], construed according to their
ordinary and natural import, are the primary source and most persuasive evidence of
legislative intent.”  
Lanzaron v. Anne Arundel County, 402 Md. 140, 149, 935 A.2d 689, 694
(2007) (quoting Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351, 359, 643 A.2d 906, 909 (1994)).  Our
goal is to effectuate the intent of the legislative body.  Comptroller of the Treasury v. Science
Applications Int’l Corp., 405 Md. 185, 198, 950 A.2d 766, 773 (2008); Ishola v. State, 404
Md. 155, 160, 945 A.2d 1273, 1276 (2008); Taylor v. Mandel, 402 Md. 109, 128, 935 A.2d
671, 682 (2007).  This Court will neither add nor delete language in a statute so as to subvert
27
that body’s plain and unambiguous intent in enacting the particular legislation.  Maryland
Overpark Corp. v. Mayor & City Council, 395 Md. 16, 47, 909 A.2d 235, 253 (2006)
(quoting Kushell v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 385 Md. 563, 576-77, 870 A.2d 186, 194 (2005)).
We construe the ordinance so as to give effect to each word so that no word, clause, sentence
or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.  Kushell, 385 Md. at 577, 870 A.2d at 193
(citing Collins v. State, 383 Md. 684, 691, 861 A.2d 727, 732 (2004)).  Thus, if an ordinance
is clear and unambiguous, our inquiry is at an end.  Kushell, 385 Md. at 577, 870 A.2d at
193-94.  If, however, the language in an ordinance is ambiguous, then we will look to
external sources in an effort to glean the legislature’s intent.  Kushell, 385 Md. at 577, 870
A.2d at 194.  
In outlining the process for the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners to approve a
Growth Allocation Petition, §14:1-77(F)  provides, in part, that within 120 days of receiving
the Critical Area Commission’s conditional approval of a proposed growth allocation
petition, the County Commissioners must introduce legislation and take “final legislative
action” on the proposed growth allocation.  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(F)(1).  If, however, the
County Commissioners propose to approve a growth allocation petition that substantially
deviates from the terms of a proposed petition that previously has been reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission and the Critical Area Commission, then the County
Commissioners must, in writing, once again refer the revised petition, with the
12 Initially, one might argue that the word “reflect” in Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G) would be
dispositive of whether accurate Critical Overlay Maps had to be drafted and attached to the
28
Commissioners’ proposed changes, to the Planning Commission and to the Critical Area
Commission.  In the absence of further action or recommendation on the revised petition by
the Planning Commission or the Critical Area Commission within 90 days, the County
Commissioners “may proceed to take final action without such recommendations.”  Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-77(F)(2).
The first mention of Critical Area Overlay Maps occurs in Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G):
“G.  Map amendment.  The Official Critical Area Map(s) will be amended to
reflect the new development area designation when the approved growth
allocation petition becomes effective.”
The fact that Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G) is not found in the subsection entitled “Final approval
by the County Commissioners” is significant.  It indicates, or at least is some evidence, that
the amendment of Critical Area Overlay Maps is not a precondition to the authority of the
County Commissioners to give final approval to a growth allocation petition.  See Morris v.
Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 604, 573 A.2d 1346, 1349 (1990) (explaining that the
interpretation of a statute is influenced by the context in which it appears).
There is not one word in §14:1-77(G) to which the petitioners have pointed, and this
Court has found none, that indicates that  accurate Critical Area Overlay Maps have to be
drafted and filed before the County Commissioners’ approval of  a growth allocation petition
will take effect.12  Instead, the interplay between Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(F)(3) and (G) leads us
Ordinance before or contemporaneous with the County Commissioners’ award of growth
allocation to Hovnanian.  The word “reflect,” depending on the context in which it is used,
can have two different meanings.  For instance, “reflect” can mean “to remember with
thoughtful consideration,” implying that an event already has occurred.  Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary, 1976.  Alternatively, the word “reflect” can mean “to bring
about a specified appearance or characterization,” suggesting that, at least from a temporal
standpoint, the event is occurring contemporaneously.  Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1973.    
29
to conclude that Queen Anne’s County Commissioners could have, as they did, approve
Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition whether, or not, there was in existence at the time,
and attached to the Ordinances, amended Overlay Maps reflecting the decision made  by the
County Commissioners.  In particular, Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(F)(3) provides that “[a] growth
allocation petition shall not be effective until after it is approved by the Critical Area
Commission and not until 45 days after approval by the County Commissioners.”  Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-77(G) provides that the “Official Critical Area Map(s) will be amended . . . when the
approved growth allocation petition becomes effective.”  Thus, the Queen Anne’s County
Code did not contemplate that amended Overlay Maps had to be drafted and attached in order
that the  Queen Anne’s County Commissioners’ Growth Allocation Petition approval take
effect.  Whether amended Overlay Maps reflecting the approved Growth Allocation Petition
must be drafted, thus, be in existence, in order for the approval to be effective is a closer
question.  
30
Queen Anne’s County Code §14:1-77(G) does not make clear whether amended
Critical Area Overlay Maps must exist before or after an approved Growth Allocation Petition
becomes effective.  As we have seen, it requires, “[t]he Official Critical Area Map(s) [to] be
amended to reflect the new development area designation when the approved growth
allocation petition becomes effective.”   Thus, the words of  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G), giving
them their plain meaning, does not indicate when the Critical Area Overlay Maps must be
amended and, thus, they do not provide for when the amendments must be prepared.   The
only temporal indicator that Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G) provides in this regard is that it uses the
word “when” in connection with the requirement that the Critical Area Overlay Maps be
amended. The word “when” is defined as “during the time at which; while” or “at the time
that.”  American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition.  In the context of Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-77(G), the word “when” is ambiguous in that no clear answer is provided to the
question  whether amended Critical Area Overlay Maps are prerequisite to the effectiveness
of an  approved growth allocation petition.  Because Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G) is ambiguous, and
does not answer the question presented, we will attempt to glean the legislature’s intent by
reviewing the general purpose of Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77 and how that purpose is served by the
competing interpretations of the statute proffered by the parties.  Witte v. Azarian, 369 Md.
518, 526, 801 A.2d 160, 165 (2002). 
31
Queen Anne’s County Code §14:1-3 states, in relevant part, that the purpose
underlying “Chapter 14:1 is to establish the critical area and to provide special regulatory
protection for the land and water resources located within the Chesapeake Bay critical area
in Queen Anne’s County.”  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-3.  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-6 codifies the interpretive
principles that the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners prescribed for reviewing
administrative or judicial bodies to apply when interpreting the provisions of Chapter 14:1.
These interpretive principles include determining whether an interpretation of a specific
provision within Chapter 14:1 is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Critical Area
Program in Maryland Code §8-1801 et seq. of the Natural Resources Article.  See Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-6.  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-6 emphasizes that “[t]his Chapter 14:1 has been carefully designed
by the County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County to avoid regulations that either
sacrifice legitimate public goals . . . or require undue limitations on the ability of property
owners to use their land in manners consistent with the goals of the program.”  Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-6(A)(4).  Reviewing bodies are also admonished that “great care should be taken by
those interpreting this Chapter 14:1 not to substitute their judgments for the legislative acts
of the County Commissioners.”  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-6(A)(4).  In light of the principles articulated
in Q.A.C.C. §14:1-6, we conclude that the interpretation given Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G) by the
petitioners is  unpersuasive and contrary to the interpretive principles articulated in Q.A.C.C.
§14:1-6.
32
The respondent contends that this Court should hold that accurate amended Overlay
Maps do not have to be prepared as a precondition to the approved growth allocation taking
effect or being effective.  Hovnanian asserts that “[w]ith no statutory provision as to
procedures, investigations, hearings, timeframes, standards, public notice and/or participation
in connection with the drafting of Overlay Maps, it is clear that drafting Overlay Maps is a
ministerial function.”  Brief of Respondent at 27.  From a practical perspective, Hovnanian
maintains that it would be absurd for this Court to conclude that the County Commissioners’
legislative approval of a growth allocation petition has no substantive effect until County
personnel, charged with the duty of drafting Overlay Maps, decide to perform their duty.  The
petitioners, on the other hand, assert that Hovnanian cannot be permitted to use the approved
Growth Allocation until accurate Overlay Maps have been drafted because “[c]learly
delineated land use boundaries are essential.”  Brief of Petitioners at 15.  Without accurate
Overlay Maps depicting the boundaries of the Growth Allocation the County Commissioners
approved,  the petitioners posit that regulatory authorities would have no way of knowing
whether development activity at a particular location is consistent with the law.  
We disagree with the petitioners and conclude that their interpretation would, in effect,
and contrary to Q.A.C.C. §14:1-6, permit Queen Anne’s County employees “to substitute their
judgments for the legislative acts of the County Commissioners.”  This is a result that we
33
cannot endorse.  The holding of the Court of Special Appeals in Clarke v. Greenwell, 73 Md.
App. 446, 534 A.2d 1344 (1988) informs our decision.  
The court in Clarke was asked to determine whether the appellee in that case timely
filed an appeal to the decision of the St. Mary’s County Commissioners to rezone a parcel of
land.  Clarke v. Greenwell, 73 Md. App. 446, 447, 534 A.2d 1344 (1988).  Critical to that
determination was the question of  when the St. Mary’s County Commissioners took final
legislative action in the matter.  In order to make that determination, the court looked to the
St. Mary’s County Zoning Code §20.03, which read:
“If, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and
Article 66B of the Annotated Code of M aryland as amended,
changes are made in . . . matter[s] portrayed on the Official
Zoning Maps, such changes shall be made a part of the Official
Zoning Maps promptly after the amendment has been approved
by the County Commissioners . . . . No amendment to this
Ordinance which involves a matter portrayed on the Official
Zoning Maps shall become effective until after such change has
been made a part of said maps.  St. Mary’s County Zoning Code,
§20.03 (Emphasis Added).
In February of 1985, the appellant, Joseph Abel Clarke filed a Rezoning Application
with the St. Mary’s County Office of Planning and Zoning.  Clarke, 73 Md. App. at 447-48,
534 A.2d at 1344.  Clarke’s application sought to have his property rezoned from R-1 (Rural
Residential) to CM (Commercial Marine).  The County Commissioners approved the change
on August 19, 1986.  Subsequently, however, Clarke received a letter from the Office of
Planning and Zoning that stated that “[t]he change will become effective when, according to
34
Section 20.03, a signed survey of the area rezoned is attached to the official zoning map.”
Clarke, 73 Md. App. at 450, 534 A.2d at 1346.  The survey was not attached to the official
zoning map until almost five months later.  Id. at 451, 534 A.2d at 1346.  
 
On the thirty-first day after the St. Mary’s County Commissioners approved rezoning,
and the day on which Clarke was advised of when the change would take effect, Joseph A.
Greenwell, the appellee, noted an appeal in St. Mary’s County Circuit Court.  Clarke moved
to dismiss the appeal, with prejudice, arguing that the appeal was filed one day late and,
therefore, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.  He relied on Maryland Rule
B4(a), which provided: that rule required an order for appeal from an administrative agency
decision to be filed within thirty days of the date of the action on which review is sought. 
Clarke, 73 Md. App. at 449, 534 A.2d at 1345.  The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the
appellants.  Because the zoning changes had not yet been made on the map, the decision to
rezone was not  final, with the result that no appeal could have been taken from the decision
of the County Commissioners.  See Maryland Rule B1(a) (requiring that an order seeking
judicial review of an administrative agency decision be filed within thirty days after the date
of the decision.).  
  The Court of Special Appeals reversed, reasoning that it would be inconceivable for
the “ministerial act” of attaching changes to the zoning map, notwithstanding the explicit
language in §20.03 of the St. Mary’s County Code, to be the dispositive factor in determining
35
the finality of an action by a legislative body.  Clarke, 73 Md. App. at 452, 534 A.2d at 1347.
It held that the appellee’s appeal was untimely.  Specifically, the intermediate appellate court
pointed out that, if the literal words of §20.03 were to be given effect, then numerous people
that possessed the power and duty to affix zoning changes to the official maps would be
vested with the ability unilaterally to supersede the legislative decision-making of the County
Commissioners.  Therefore, the court concluded, that it could not have been the intent of the
County Commissioners to vest third-persons with the authority to overrule their decisions.
Id. at 447, 534 A.2d at 1344.  
The Clarke holding and its rationale is applicable to the resolution of the case sub
judice.  Were we to adopt the petitioners’ reasoning, the Queen Anne’s County employees,
responsible for drafting Critical Overlay Maps, and amendments to them, would be vested
with the power to delay, or even completely preclude, an approved growth allocation petition
from becoming effective.  They would have, in effect, veto authority.  That would, in essence,
undermine, if not nullify completely, Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(F), which vests Queen Anne’s
County Commissioners with the authority to exercise “final legislative action” on growth
allocation petitions.  It would also be inconsistent with Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G), which, to the
contrary, judging from the words used, contemplates that County Commissioners would have
just such authority.  Accordingly, we hold that adoption and filing of amended Critical Area
Overlay Maps were not prerequisites, conditions precedent, either to the Queen Anne’s
36
County Commissioners’ approval of Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition or its being
effective.  The drafting of amended Critical Area Overlay Maps quite simply is a ministerial
function that necessarily must occur subsequent to an award of Growth Allocation becoming
effective.
The petitioners next contend that, without accurate amended Critical Area Overlay
Maps, regulatory authorities will not be able to ascertain whether development activity at a
particular location is lawful.  We do not agree.  To be sure, as the respondent acknowledges,
while Overlay Maps must be as accurate as possible, with particular reference to the maps in
this case, the drafting of Critical Area Overlay Maps is “not an exact exercise” and is “perhaps
impossible.”  Mr. Nuttle, the court appointed surveyor, confirmed this point.  Commenting
on the attendant difficulties of drafting accurate Overlay Maps, he said:
“I was specifically asked to review several documents, Sheet 7 of the
Sketch/Concept Plan by McCrone and numbers 49 and 57 of the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area overlays to determine any differences.  I was also asked [to]
give an opinion as to the extent that these differences were the result of tax map
inaccuracies and differences in the scales used.
                              *       *       *
“The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area maps were apparently made by using the
tax maps as a base.  Some land use lines were made by scaling specified
distances from natural features such as shore lines, creeks, wetlands, etc.
Others were obviously made by following property lines shown on the tax
maps.  The assessment people have done a great job with their maps, but the
maps are too inaccurate both as to the position of property lines and of shore
lines.”  
37
Notwithstanding the inaccuracies that seem to be inherent in the drafting process for
Critical Area Overlay Maps, the petitioners maintain that, before an applicant can use an
admittedly approved growth allocation, accurate Overlay Maps must be drafted and
themselves filed with the ordinances.  Only then, they submit, can  regulatory authorities
determine whether a developer is conducting development activity lawfully.  Again, we
disagree.   The petitioners seem not to  appreciate that all growth allocation applicants are
required to submit sketch or concept plans with their petitions and that no such petition may
be approved without them.  A sketch or concept plan is required to contain a detailed
description of the property as to which an award of growth allocation is sought.  Moreover,
pursuant to  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-76, the sketch or concept plan must include the recommendations
made by the Planning Commission.  Thus, it will have been reviewed by the Planning
Commission.  Only then will this sketch or concept plan be submitted to the Critical Area
Commission.  It follows, therefore, that the reviewing agencies, the Planning Commission,
the CAC and the regulating body, the County Commissioners, are well aware of the property
to be developed.  Consequently, should the exact location of growth allocation ever be in
question and there are no approved Critical Area Overlay Maps reflecting the award, either
because they have not yet been drafted or contain cartographic errors, the regulatory
authorities, contrary to the petitioners’ assertions, need only to look to the approved sketch
or concept plans for clarification.
38
The petitioners also ask this Court to determine the procedures to be followed to
correct the cartographic errors found on the most recent Critical Area Overlay Maps.  They
assert that Maryland Code (2000 Repl. Vol., 2006) §8-1809(l) of the Natural Resources
Article outlines the procedures to be followed.  That section provides:
“(l) Correction of clear mistakes, omissions, or conflicts with criteria or laws.
“(1) If the Commission determines that an adopted program
contains a clear mistake, omission, or conflict with the criteria or
law, the Commission may:
“(i) Notify the local jurisdiction of the specific
deficiency; and
“(ii) Request that the jurisdiction submit a
proposed program 
amendment 
or 
program
refinement to correct the deficiency.
“(2) Within 90 days after being notified of any deficiency under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the local jurisdiction shall
submit to the Commission, as program amendments or program
refinements, any proposed changes that are necessary to correct
those deficiencies.
“(3) Local project approvals granted under a part of a program
that the Commission has determined to be deficient shall be null
and void after notice of the deficiency.”  Md. Code (2000 Repl.
Vol., 2006) §8-1809(l), Natural Resources Article.” 
The petitioners urge us to hold, as they maintain, that §8-1809(l) clearly indicates the
Legislature’s intent to prohibit “informal manipulation of Critical Area boundaries lacking
public process or oversight by the Critical Area Commission.”  
The respondent, not unexpectedly, does not agree.  Rather than challenging the
petitioner’s interpretation of §8-1809(l)(1), it submits that it is inapposite.  It argues that an
“adopted program,” as referenced and used in §8-1809(l)(1) refers to the County’s initial
39
establishment of a Critical Area Program.  At issue here is “Growth Allocation,” an entirely
different issue, requiring considerations that also are completely different.  Indeed, the
respondent maintains that nothing in §8-1809 requires that formal amendment procedures be
followed to correct mere ministerial mapping errors.  We agree.
Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G) is of no assistance either.  Section 14:1-77(G) does not contain
a procedure, formal or informal, for correcting an erroneous Critical Area Overlay Map.  And,
the petitioners have not, and we believe cannot,  point this Court to any statutory language that
would suggest that there is a formal procedure that must be followed for the correction of
cartographic errors on Critical Area Overlay Maps to be corrected once an applicant’s growth
allocation petition has been approved and has become effective.  This conclusion is confirmed
by reference to  Q.A.C.C. §14:1-77(G), which does not mention or even remotely suggest that
there is a formal process that must be followed in order to correct cartographic errors on
Overlay Maps.  In the absence of a procedure prescribed legislatively for correcting
cartographic errors on Critical Area Overlay Maps and consistent with our holding today, we
believe Queen Anne’s County employees may, indeed must, correct, as revealed, drafting
errors, on the County’s Critical Area Overlay Maps.
The final issue that we shall address emanates from the petitioners’ argument that, due
to the absence of attached maps, Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A were nullities.  Here, the
petitioners contend that the administrative record makes it impossible to know if Queen
40
Anne’s County Commissioners actually approved Hovnanian’s 2000 or 2001 Growth
Allocation Plan.  According to the petitioners, “There is absolutely nothing contained in the
record of this case that indicates that the 2001 plan was ever presented to the County
Commissioners[.]”  Brief of Appellants at 24.  As the boundaries on the 2000 and 2001
Growth Allocation Plans were different, the petitioners assert that the only remedy to clarify
this issue is to require the Critical Area Commission and the County Commissioners to go
through the process of reapproving Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth Allocation Plan.
The respondent counters that “[a] fair reading of the administrative record makes it
abundantly clear that on June 14, 2001, the County Planning Commission approved the 2001
Growth Allocation Plan (Sheet of 7), and on July 11, 2001, the Critical Area Commission
approved the same plan.”  Brief of Respondent at 38.  The Court of Special Appeals agreed
and held that there was no basis for the court to conclude that the Critical Area Commission
or the County Commissioners approved anything other than Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth
Allocation Plan.  We agree with the Court of Special Appeals.   
We begin by noting that “[i]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, administrative
officers will be presumed to have properly performed their duties.”  See  Johnstown Coal &
Coke Co. v. Dishong, 198 Md. 467, 474, 84 A.2d 847, 849 (1951); Armco Steel Corp. v.
Trafton, 35 Md. App. 658, 671, 371 A.2d 1128, 1134 (1977).  The record makes it abundantly
clear that after the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners passed Resolution No. 01-13 on
41
May 23, 2001, and Hovnanian subsequently submitted an Amended Concept/Sketch Plan (the
2001 Growth Allocation Plan) to reflect the conditions mandated by that Resolution, all
administrative agencies voted to approve the 2001 Growth Allocation Plan.  The primary
evidence that supports this conclusion is a June 14, 2001 letter addressed to the Queen Anne’s
County Commissioners from the Planning Commission which stated, in relevant part:    
“The Planning Commission was directed to review the amended concept/sketch
plan that reflects, where applicable, the conditions contained in County
Commissioner Resolution No. 01-13 and make any further recommendations
deemed appropriate.  The Planning Commission reviewed the project on June
14, 2001 and offers no objection to the 25 conditions contained in County
Commissioner Resolution 01-13.  The Planning Commission offers a favorable
recommendation for the County Commissioners to take final action on the
award of Growth Allocation to change 293.25 acres of RCA land to IDA and
redesignation of 79.55 acres of Critical Area land from LDA to IDA with no
additional conditions or recommendations.”  (Emphasis Added).
As further evidence that there was no confusion about which of Hovnanian’s Growth
Allocation Plans was being approved by the responsible administrative agencies, we refer to
the July 13, 2001 letter from the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission to Queen Anne’s
County Planning Commission.  In that letter, the Commission stated, in relevant part:
“At its meeting of July 11, 2001, the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Area Commission voted to confirm its previous approval of the
request for growth allocation for the Four Seasons at Kent Island
project.  It was noted that the amended concept plan reflects the
conditions placed on the Critical Area Commission approval
through graphic depiction or plat notes.”  (Emphasis Added).
42
The repeated references to the “amended concept/sketch plan” and the “amended concept
plan” in the letters above clearly demonstrate that neither Queen Anne’s County
Commissioners nor the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission was confused about the
Growth Allocation Plan that each approved.  To the contrary, the letters illuminate the fact
that both agencies knowingly approved Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth Allocation Plan.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED W ITH COSTS.