Title: Attar v. DMS Tollgate, LLC

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Afshin Attar, et al. v. DMS Tollgate, LLC, et al., No. 12, September Term, 2016.  Opinion 
by Hotten, J. 
 
ZONING AND PLANNING — FINDINGS, REASONS, CONCLUSIONS, 
MINUTES OR RECORDS: The Board of Appeals’ description of the neighborhood 
impacted by a special exception must be precise enough to enable a party or appellate court 
to comprehend the area that the Board of Appeals considered. The sufficiency of this 
precision is determined through a review of the evidence in the record describing the 
impact on the surrounding properties, as referenced within the Board’s opinion. 
 
ZONING AND PLANNING — PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDENS OF PROOF: 
While an applicant for a special exception bears both the burden of persuasion and of 
production, the coexistent presumption of validity of a special exception does not shift the 
burden of proof to the protestant. This presumption in favor of the applicant is not mutually 
exclusive from the burdens upon the applicant, and the protestant must sufficiently rebut 
the presumption in favor of the applicant. The applicant is not relieved of the requirement 
of presenting evidence to establish a prima facie case as to those issues for which the 
applicant bears the burdens if the protestant sufficiently rebuts the presumption. The 
presumption in favor of the applicant merely enhances the probative value of other 
evidence adduced. 
 
 
 
Circuit Court for Baltimore County,  
Maryland 
Case No. 03-C-14007926 
Argued: October 11, 2016 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
No. 12 
 
September Term, 2016 
 
______________________________________ 
 
 
AFSHIN ATTAR, et al. 
 
v. 
 
DMS TOLLGATE, LLC, et al. 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
Greene, 
Adkins, 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten,  
Getty, 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Hotten, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed: January 23, 2017
 
 
In October 2012, William and Mary Groff, the property owners, and Respondent, 
DMS Tollgate, LLC (collectively “Applicants”) applied for a Petition for a Special 
Exception of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (“BCZR”), to operate a fuel service 
station with a convenience store containing a sales area larger than 1,500 square feet. The 
petition requested that Tollgate be permitted to construct a Wawa on an 8.51 acre property 
known as 10609 Reisterstown Road (“the property”). The property is zoned as BL-AS, or 
Business Local with Automotive Services.1 The property is bordered by Reisterstown 
Road, Groff Lane, and the Gwynns Falls stream. 
The Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) conducted a hearing in which the 
Applicants appeared in support of the grant of the Special Exception. Petitioners in this 
Court, Afshin Attar, Ashkan Rahmanattar, Malik Imran, and Perry S. Crowl (collectively 
“Protestants”) attended in opposition. Witnesses for the Protestants testified at the hearing 
as to how the proposed Wawa would cause traffic congestion, a harmful environmental 
impact, and a detrimental effect upon the economic stability of the neighborhood. In its 
Opinion and Order dated October 31, 2013, OAH found that “these are impacts that are 
                                                          
 
1 This zoning was obtained through the 2012 Baltimore County Comprehensive 
Zoning Map Process after extensive discussions between Tollgate, several county agencies 
and community groups. In exchange for the community groups granting the rezoning 
request, on August 28, 2012, Tollgate entered into a “DECLARATION OF COVENANTS 
AND AGREEMENTS,” which required that the property be developed “in a manner 
consistent with and compl[e]mentary to the historic character of” the adjacent property. 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
 
inherent in the operation of a gasoline/convenience store[,]” and granted the Petition with 
conditions. 2 
The Protestants appealed to the Board of Appeals for Baltimore County (“the 
Board”), which approved the conditions for the Special Exception after a de novo 
evidentiary hearing. The Board noted that Tollgate 
decided to proceed with the request for a Special Exception before receiving 
County approval for the proposed road relocation and approval for the flood 
                                                          
 
2 The Opinion and Order of the Administrative Law Judge stated: 
 
The relief granted herein shall be subject to the following: 
 
1. [Applicants] may apply for appropriate permits and be granted same 
upon receipt of this Order; however, [Applicants] are hereby made 
aware that proceeding at this time is at their own risk until such time 
as the 30-day appellate process from this Order has expired. If, for 
whatever reason, this Order is reversed, [Applicants] would be 
required to return, and be responsible for returning, said property to 
its original condition. 
 
2. Unless extended by subsequent order, the special exception granted 
herein must be utilized within two (2) years from the date of this 
Order. 
 
3. The “special exception area” shall include the 1.70 acre (74,088 SF) 
area of the proposed Wawa service station and convenience store, but 
shall not include the 0.43 acre (18,628 SF) area of proposed relocated 
Groff Lane. 
 
4. Approval by Baltimore County of a landscape and light plan for the 
site. 
 
5. Approval by county, state and federal authorities of the floodplain 
study and/or floodplain map amendment or revision as sought by 
[Applicants]. 
 
6. Approval and issuance of all necessary permits by the State Highway 
Administration. 
 
- 3 - 
 
plain relocation from [the Federal Emergency Management Agency]. Under 
the BCZR this approach is not prohibited and therefore the grant of a Special 
Exception has no bearing on the approval o[r] non-approval of the foregoing 
matters. 
 
The Board granted the Special Exception “with the same conditions as those imposed by 
the Administrative Law Judge below.” 
The Protestants appealed for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore 
County. The circuit court found that the Board’s findings: “were both reasonable and 
supported by substantial evidence in the record[]” and “were premised upon the proper 
application and conclusions of law[.]” The circuit court accordingly affirmed the decision 
of the Board on December 19, 2014. Thereafter, the Protestants appealed to the Court of 
Special Appeals. In an unreported opinion dated December 28, 2015, the Court of Special 
Appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court. We granted the Petition for Writ of 
Certiorari filed by the Protestants. 447 Md. 297, 135 A.3d 416 (2016).  Protestants present 
two questions for our review: 
1.  Whether Maryland’s special exception jurisprudence requires the 
Baltimore County Board of Appeals to define the boundaries of the 
neighborhood of the proposed special exception before approving that 
special exception and, if so, whether the Board of Appeals’ opinion satisfied 
Maryland’s minimum requirements for articulating the facts found regarding 
the neighborhood’s boundaries. 
 
2. 
Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred when it held that the 
Applicant met its burden of proof, as articulated by the concurring opinion 
in People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, et al. v. Loyola College in 
Maryland, 406 Md. 54, [956 A.2d 166] (2008). 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
We conclude that the Board’s description of the neighborhood impacted by the special 
exception was precise enough to enable a party or appellate court to comprehend the area 
that the Board considered.  
Secondly, we conclude that while an applicant for a special exception bears both the 
burden of persuasion and production, the coexistent presumption in favor of an applicant 
is not a mutually exclusive evidentiary burden. The Board correctly determined that the 
Protestants failed to sufficiently rebut the presumption of validity of a special exception.  
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. 
Standard of Review 
An appellate court reviews the decision of an administrative agency “under the same 
statutory standards as the [c]ircuit [c]ourt,” meaning “we reevaluate the decision of the 
agency, not the decision of the lower court.” Gigeous v. Eastern Correctional Inst., 363 
Md. 481, 495–96, 769 A.2d 912, 921 (2001) (citation and footnote omitted).  In reviewing 
the decision of an agency, our role “is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence 
in the record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions, and to determine 
if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” United 
Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel, 336 Md. 569, 577, 650 A.2d 226, 230 (1994).  
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 
adequate to support a conclusion.” Md. State Police v. Warwick Supply & Equip. Co., 
Inc., 330 Md. 474, 494, 624 A.2d 1238, 1248 (1993) (citation omitted).  Further, we may 
not substitute our judgment for that of the Board of Appeals unless the agency’s 
 
- 5 - 
 
conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence or were premised on an error of 
law. Stansbury v. Jones, 372 Md. 172, 182, 184, 812 A.2d 312, 318, 319 (2002). 
Discussion 
I. 
The Board’s Opinion Referenced Ample Evidence of Record Which 
Sufficiently Enables Us to Comprehend the Area the Board Considered. Thus, the 
Board Sufficiently Defined the Neighborhood. 
 
 
The Protestants argue that the Board erred when it failed to define the boundaries of 
the Wawa’s neighborhood. In support, Protestants urge that an applicant for a special 
exception must establish the boundaries of the neighborhood, and the zoning tribunal’s 
written decision must satisfy Maryland law’s minimum requirements for articulating the 
facts found regarding the neighborhood’s boundaries. 
Under BCZR § 502.1(A), a special exception use is prohibited if it is “detrimental 
to the health, safety or general welfare of the locality involved.”3  In Schultz v. Pritts, we 
held that an applicant for a special exception “does not have the burden of establishing 
affirmatively that his proposed use would be a benefit to the community. If he shows to the 
satisfaction of the Board that the proposed use would be conducted without real detriment 
to the neighborhood . . . he has met his burden.” 291 Md. 1, 11, 432 A.2d 1319, 1325 
(1981).   
We further held in Montgomery County v. Butler, “[t]he phrase ‘detriment to the 
neighborhood’ implies necessarily that the Board’s task is to determine if there is or likely 
will be a detriment to the surrounding properties.” 417 Md. 271, 305, 9 A.3d 824, 844 
                                                          
 
3 BCZR § 502.1 does not explicitly require that a neighborhood’s boundary be 
specifically defined. 
 
- 6 - 
 
(2010) (emphasis added). Thus, we held that, within the context of a special exception, the 
“neighborhood” means “the surrounding properties.” Id. See also Montgomery v. Bd. of 
Cty. Comm’rs for Prince George’s Cty., 263 Md. 1, 5, 280 A.2d 901, 903 (1971) (holding 
that, in the rezoning context, “[t]he concept of a neighborhood is a flexible one, and will 
vary according to the geographical location involved[.]”); Woodlawn Area Citizens Ass’n 
v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for Prince George’s Cty, 241 Md. 187, 198, 216 A.2d 149, 156 
(1966) (holding that, in the rezoning context, “what constitutes a neighborhood . . . is not 
and should not be precisely and rigidly defined[.]”). 
In Alviani v. Dixon, we considered whether the Anne Arundel County Board of 
Appeals erred when it granted variances4 to enable applicants to satisfy criteria for a special 
exception, regarding the construction of an automotive service station. 365 Md. 95, 775 
A.2d 1234 (2001).  The protestants in Alviani specifically “allege[d] that the Board failed 
to properly define the relevant neighborhood that was considered when the Board found 
                                                          
 
4 We outline infra how, for purposes of determining the sufficiency of the 
description of the “neighborhood,” our rezoning jurisprudence is inapposite to our special 
exception jurisprudence. Parallel to this analysis, in Alviani v. Dixon, we addressed how 
our use variance jurisprudence is inapposite to our area variance jurisprudence. In Alviani 
we held: 
 
The standards applied to area variances are more relaxed than those applied 
to use variances because the impact of an area variance is viewed as being 
much less drastic than that of a use variance. Consequently, the cases cited 
by appellants do not support their contention that the surrounding 
“neighborhood” must be defined with the same precision in approving area 
variances as is required in approving use variances. 
 
365 Md. at 120, 775 A.2d at 1248 (citations and quotation omitted). 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
that the variances would not affect the neighborhood.” Id. at 117, 775 A.2d at 1247.  We 
disagreed and found, “after examining the record, that the Board established the relevant 
neighborhood[,]” as the Board’s description was “precise enough to enable a party or an 
appellate court to comprehend the area that the Board considered when deciding to grant 
the variances.” Id. at 117, 119, 775 A.2d at 1247, 1248. 
 
Lucas v. People’s Counsel for Balt. Cty. involved a petition for a special exception 
for an “airport” zoning special exception on a farm zoned for agriculture, located within a 
National Historic District in Baltimore County. 147 Md. App. 209, 216–17, 807 A.2d 1176, 
1180 (2002), disapproved of on other grounds by People’s Counsel for Balt. Cty. v. Loyola 
Coll. in Md., 406 Md. 54, 956 A.2d 166 (2008).  In Lucas, the Honorable James A. Kenney, 
III employed the standard outlined in Alviani, and found that the Board’s definition of the 
relevant area was insufficient, as it relied on only amorphous descriptions of the area to be 
considered: 
The Board relied on testimony regarding the adverse effect of the airport on 
the “land around Helmore Farm,” on “the horse industry in the area,” on the 
“historical district,” and on “Greenspring Valley.” The Board’s definition of 
the relevant area does not provide the precision required for a party or an 
appellate court to comprehend the adversely affected area and to determine 
if the neighborhood reasonably constitutes the immediate environment of the 
subject property. 
 
147 Md. App. at 241, 807 A.2d at 1195. 
 
In accord with our precedent in Alviani, in conjunction with the special exception 
jurisprudence reflected by Schultz, Butler, and Lucas, we hold that the description of the 
neighborhood impacted by the special exception must be precise enough to enable a party 
or appellate court to comprehend the area that the Board considered. Precision is 
 
- 8 - 
 
determined through a review of the evidence in the record describing the impact on the 
surrounding properties, as referenced within the Board’s opinion. See also Critical Area 
Comm’n for Chesapeake & Atl. Coastal Bays v. Moreland, LLC, 418 Md. 111, 135, 12 
A.3d 1223, 1238 (2011) (holding that meaningful judicial review is possible when the 
Board summarizes substantial evidence in support of its findings). 
In the case at bar, the Board’s opinion stated in relevant part: 
The [Applicants] offered into evidence the testimony of Ken Schmid, of 
Traffic Concepts, Inc., who was admitted as an expert in the fields of Traffic 
Engineering and Transportation Planning. Mr. Schmid opined that the 
proposed use will not create congestion of the roads, streets or alleys in the 
area of the subject property. The proposed relocation of Groff Lane to create 
a four way signalized intersection, according to Mr. Schmid, will create a 
safer and more convenient pattern of traffic circulation for the subject 
property and the surrounding area.  
 
*** 
 
The [Applicants] called Mr. Rick Richardson, of Richardson Engineering, 
who was offered and accepted by the Board as an expert in the fields of civil 
engineering, zoning and development. 
 
*** 
 
Mr. Richardson testified that the proposed fuel service station is not . . . 
located within a mile radius of any abandoned fuel service station(s). 
 
*** 
 
The Protestants called to testify John Seitz, of Transportation Resource 
Group, Inc. who was accepted by the Board as an expert in the area of Traffic 
Engineering. Mr. Seitz testified that as a part of his investigation of the 
proposed use of the subject site he evaluated the potential truck turning radius 
for fuel delivery trucks entering the proposed site using a computer based 
traffic modeling program and determined that a fuel delivery truck 
attempting to turn into the proposed site would cause potential congestion 
and traffic difficulty of Groff Mill Road because of the wide turning angle 
required for such trucks. 
 
- 9 - 
 
*** 
 
The Protestants next called Andrew Miller, PhD who was admitted as an 
expert in hydrological studies. Dr. Miller testified concerning the Flood Plain 
Study prepared by the [Applicants]. According to Dr. Miller the subject area 
contains a portion of the existing flood plain which will be filled in to 
facilitate construction of the site. 
 
The Board’s opinion references ample evidence of record for us to appreciate the 
area considered by the Board. The Board referenced testimony concerning the roads and 
intersections surrounding the subject property, including: Tollgate Road, Reisterstown 
Road, Groff Lane, and Reisterstown Road’s intersection with Owings Mills Boulevard. 
The Board referenced testimony regarding the commercial development surrounding the 
property.  In accordance with BCZR § 405.3,5 the Board referenced testimony regarding 
an exhibit which depicted the five gas stations contained within a one-mile radius from the 
property. The Board referenced testimony regarding the flood plain surrounding the 
property. Unlike in Lucas, there was ample evidence presented to the Board regarding the 
immediate environs of the proposed Wawa, which the Board referenced in its opinion. 
Here, the evidence presented to the Board regarding the area impacted by the special 
exception, as referenced in the Board’s opinion, was precise enough to enable a party or 
appellate court to comprehend the area that the Board considered. Thus, we will not disturb 
the Board’s decision. 
                                                          
 
5 BCZR 405.3 “Condition for disapproving special exception[]” provides in 
pertinent part “the Zoning Commissioner, prior to granting any special exception for a fuel 
service station, shall consider the presence of abandoned fuel service stations in the vicinity 
of the proposed site.” 
 
- 10 - 
 
 
The Protestants further contend that we require a delineation of the neighborhood 
in rezoning matters, and accordingly, this same requirement should be extended to apply 
in special exception cases. We disagree.  
Rezoning cases are inapposite to our analysis because of the respective burdens in 
rezoning and special exception matters. We have stated that:  
[T]here is a strong presumption of the correctness of original zoning and 
comprehensive rezoning and that to sustain a piecemeal change therefrom 
there must be produced strong evidence of mistake in the original zoning and 
comprehensive rezoning and that to sustain a piecemeal change therefrom 
there must be produced strong evidence of mistake in the original zoning or 
else evidence of a change in conditions resulting in a substantial change in 
the character of the neighborhood. 
 
Heller v. Prince George’s Cty., 264 Md. 410, 412, 286 A.2d 772, 773 (1972) (citation 
omitted); see also Border v. Grooms, 267 Md. 100, 110, 297 A.2d 81, 86 (1972) (holding 
“that which reasonably constitutes the neighborhood of the subject property is one of the 
basic facts to be established by an applicant for rezoning, and because of its fundamental 
involvement in any case resting on a contention of a change in the character of the 
neighborhood it must be satisfactorily shown upon the record.”) (emphasis added).    
Given the heavy burden upon the party seeking a rezoning, and the strong 
presumption in favor of the original zoning, “some delineation of the general boundaries 
encompassed” is an apt evidentiary element in the rezoning context. Border, 267 Md. at 
110, 297 A.2d at 86; see also Heller, 264 Md. at 412, 286 A.2d at 773 (holding that, in the 
rezoning context, “there is a strong presumption of the correctness of the original zoning” 
and “[t]he burden of proof, of course, is quite onerous and it rests squarely on the one 
seeking the reclassification.”).  There is an inverse evidentiary presumption, however, in 
 
- 11 - 
 
the special exception context. A special exception is presumed to be in the interest of the 
general welfare, and therefore a special exception enjoys a presumption of validity. Schultz, 
291 Md. at 11, 432 A.2d at 1325.  Given these conflicting presumptions, our requirement 
for a precise definition of the neighborhood within rezoning matters does not extend to 
special exception cases. 
II. 
 The Burden of Proof Was Not Inappropriately Assigned to the Protestants 
 
 
The Protestants argue that the Board of Appeals erred when it assigned the burden 
of proof to the Protestants and concluded that the Protestants’ evidence did “not rebut the 
presumption of validity of the Special Exception use in this case.” We disagree.  A special 
exception in Baltimore County is granted pursuant BCZR § 502.1, which provides, in 
pertinent part: 
Before any special exception may be granted, it must appear that the use for 
which the special exception is requested will not: 
A. Be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the locality 
involved; 
 
B. Tend to create congestion in roads, streets or alleys therein[.] 
 
In Schultz we held: 
[T]he appropriate standard to be used in determining whether a requested 
special exception use would have an adverse effect and, therefore, should 
be denied is whether there are facts and circumstances that show that the 
particular use proposed at the particular location proposed would have any 
adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a 
special exception use irrespective of its location within the zone. 
 
 
- 12 - 
 
291 Md. at 22–23, 432 A.2d at 1331.  We further held that a special exception is presumed 
to be in the interest of the general welfare, and therefore a special exception enjoys a 
presumption of validity. Id. at 11, 432 A.2d at 1325. 
It is undisputed that “both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on 
the issue of whether the special exception should be granted[]” fall on the applicant, 
whereby the applicant must persuade the Board “by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the special exception will conform to all applicable requirements.” Loyola Coll. in Md., 
406 Md. at 109, 956 A.2d at 199. 
The Protestants, however, assert that the Board “assigned the burden of proof to the 
Protestants[]” when it stated: “The Protestants’ concerns taken from the available evidence 
do not rebut the presumption of validity of the Special Exception in this case.” Directly 
prior to this finding, however, the Board articulated the Schultz standard: 
there is a presumption under Maryland Law that a Special Exception is in [ ] 
the general interest of the jurisdiction and therefore valid and that a Special 
Exception is properly denied only when there are facts and circumstances 
showing the adverse impacts of the use at the particular location in question 
would be above and beyond those inherently associated with the Special 
Exception use. 
 
The Board’s opinion did not improperly assign the burden of proof to the 
Protestants. While an applicant for a special exception bears both the burden of persuasion 
and of production, the concurrent presumption in favor of a special exception applicant is 
not a mutually exclusive evidentiary burden. As the Honorable Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. 
explained within the context of presumptions of civil actions under Maryland Rule 5-
301(a): 
 
- 13 - 
 
[A] presumption does not necessarily shift the burden of persuasion. Rather, 
it merely satisfies the burden of going forward on a fact presumed and may 
satisfy the burden of persuasion if no rebuttal evidence is introduced by the 
other side. . . . Stated differently, the party favored by the presumption is not 
relieved of the requirement of presenting evidence to establish a prima facie 
case as to those issues for which he bears the burden of proof if the adverse 
party sufficiently rebuts the presumption. In such instances, the presumption 
merely enhances the probative value of other evidence adduced. 
 
Anderson v. Litzenberg, 115 Md. App. 549, 564, 694 A.2d 150, 157 (1997).  Here, the 
Protestants did not set forth sufficient evidence to indicate that the proposed fuel service 
station would have any adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with 
such use under the Schultz standard. 291 Md. at 15, 432 A.2d at 1327.  Thus, the Board 
simply stated that, in light of the Applicants having presented sufficient evidence 
demonstrating compliance with BCZR § 502.1 and the general presumption of validity 
enjoyed by special exception uses, the evidence as a whole did not warrant denial of the 
petition for the special exception.. See Anderson, 115 Md. App. at 564, 694 A.2d at 157.  
The Board’s opinion did not inappropriately assign the burden of proof. 
III. 
The Evidence Presented by the Protestants Was Not Sufficient to Rebut the 
Presumption of the Validity of a Special Exception.6 
                                                          
 
6 Protestants argued in their reply brief that the issue of whether there was substantial 
evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusions is not before this Court. As we 
noted in Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 949 A.2d 639 (2008): 
 
Since the time when this Court's jurisdiction became largely dependent upon 
the issuance of a writ of certiorari, we have consistently held that, in a case 
decided by an intermediate appellate court, we shall not consider an issue 
unless it was raised in a certiorari petition, a cross-petition, or the order by 
this Court granting certiorari. We again decline to address an issue not raised 
fairly in an otherwise successful Petition for Writ of Certiorari. 
 
405 Md. at 60–61, 949 A.2d at 649 (citations omitted). See also Md. Rule 8–131(b) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(continued . . . ) 
 
- 14 - 
 
 
The Protestants next argue that they presented evidence generating a genuine 
question of fact as to whether the special exception will create congested roads per BCZR 
§ 502.1(B), and that it will have detrimental environmental and economic impacts per 
BCZR § 502.1(A). 
A.   
Road Congestion 
BCZR § 502.1(B) requires that a special exception not “[t]end to create congestion 
in roads, streets or alleys therein[.]” At the hearing before the Board, the Applicants called 
Ken Schmid of Traffic Concepts, Inc. as an expert in the fields of Traffic Engineering and 
Transportation Planning. Mr. Schmid testified that the proposed use will not create 
congestion in the roads, streets, or alleys. Mr. Schmid testified that he and his company 
submitted two Traffic Impact Studies on behalf of the Applicants to the Maryland State 
Highway Administration in support of the planned relocation of Groff Road. On cross-
examination, Mr. Schmid acknowledged that the planned road relocation had not yet 
received approval. The Board ultimately conditioned the grant of the Special Exception 
                                                          
 
(. . . continued) 
(“Unless otherwise provided by the order granting the writ of certiorari, in reviewing a 
decision rendered by the Court of Special Appeals . . . the Court of Appeals ordinarily will 
consider only an issue that has been raised in the petition for certiorari or any cross-petition 
and that has been preserved for review by the Court of Appeals.”).  This Court granted 
certiorari on the question of whether the Court of Special Appeals erred when it held that 
the Applicants met their burden of proof, as articulated in the concurring opinion in 
People’s Counsel for Balt. Cty. v. Loyola Coll. in Md., 406 Md. 54, 135 A.3d 416 (2016).  
We find that the sufficiency of the evidence in this matter is a necessary facet of the burden 
of proof issue, on which this Court granted certiorari. Moreover, the Protestant’s Petition 
for Writ of Certiorari argued that the Board erred because it failed to address the fact the 
record contained genuine questions of fact regarding the Wawa’s effect on traffic 
congestion, the Gwynns Falls stream and its flood plain, and the economic stability of the 
neighborhood. 
 
- 15 - 
 
upon approval and issuance of all necessary permits by the State Highway Administration. 
In addition, the Applicants presented the testimony of Mr. Rick Richardson, who was 
accepted by the Board as an expert in the fields of civil engineering, zoning and 
development. Mr. Richardson testified that the Wawa will meet or surpass the requirements 
of BCZR § 502.1. In rebuttal, Protestants provided testimony from John Seitz of 
Transportation Resource Group to support their contention that the proposed Wawa would 
result in potential congestion and traffic difficulty off Groff Mill Road as a result of turning 
fuel delivery trucks. 
 The Schultz special exception test considers whether the proposed use will have a 
greater impact here than one would ordinarily expect. The Protestants did not present “facts 
and circumstances [pertaining to congestion in the roads, streets, or alleys] that show that 
the particular use proposed at the particular location proposed would have any adverse 
effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a special exception use[.]” 
291 Md. at 15, 432 A.2d at 1327 (emphasis added).  Thus, the Protestants did not 
sufficiently rebut the presumption of validity under Schultz. 
B.   
Floodplain Relocation 
The Protestants provided evidence that the Gwynns Falls floodplain may be 
impacted by the construction of the Wawa. The Board, however, did not render a factual 
conclusion on this issue: “The possibility of a negative impact upon the flood plain by [the 
Applicants’] plans will be determined separately by way of the investigation by State and 
Federal authorities and pursuant to Baltimore County Code (Section 32–8–101 [et seq.]) 
will only be granted when there is no adverse effect upon the safety and welfare of the 
 
- 16 - 
 
citizenry.” Tollgate is not prevented by the BCZR from proceeding with the request for the 
Special Exception before receiving approval for the proposed floodplain relocation. 
Because the Board did not render, nor was it required to make, a factual conclusion on this 
issue, and we cannot arrive at such a conclusion, there was no error from the Board for us 
to review. See United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel, 336 Md. at 577, 650 A.2d at 
230 (stating that our role “is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the 
record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions, and to determine if the 
administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.”). 
C.  Economic Impact 
Lastly, Protestants argue that the Wawa will negatively impact the economic 
stability of the neighborhood, as the addition of a sixth gas station in the area may result in 
one of the five existing gas stations going out of business. We have held that the 
“prevention of competition is not a proper element of zoning.” Kreatchman v. 
Ramsburg, 224 Md. 209, 219, 167 A.2d 345, 351 (1961) (citations omitted). The economic 
effects of zoning should be considered only as they affect the general welfare. Id. at 222, 
167 A.2d at 352.7  The speculative testimony provided by the Protestants as to the increase 
in supply in excess of demand within the fuel service station market fails to rebut the 
presumption of validity under Schultz. 
                                                          
 
7 As we noted, the Board conducted an analysis of BCZR 405.3 and determined that 
“[t]he evidence presented at the hearing established that there are no abandoned fuel service 
stations located within either one-half mile or one-mile of the proposed site.” Contrary to 
the Protestants’ contention, the Wawa may increase competition within the relevant fuel 
service station marketplace, increase consumer welfare, and thus, may even increase the 
general welfare of the locality. 
 
- 17 - 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 
OF SPECIAL APPEALS IS 
AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE 
PAID BY PETITIONERS.